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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 1 should read in part “unit, comprising: a housing”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 12 should read in part “part and made”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 9, line 3 should read in part “part from cast light”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 10, lines 2-3 should read in part “direction, which runs”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 37, lines 1 should read in part “accordance with claim [[35]] 36,”. Appropriate correction is required.
The Examiner notes that claim 37 includes features introduced in claim 36 and lack at least antecedent basis with features of claim 35. Accordingly, Claim 37 is read in accordance with the features disclosed and in view of Applicant’s specification as dependent from claim 36.
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 7, 13, and 49 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.
In Reference to Claim 7
The indefiniteness stems from the recitation of “in particular aluminum”. It is unclear if “aluminum” is required by the claim language or merely optional as the claim recitations disclose a board and narrow limitation (i.e.-light metal & aluminum).
For Examination purposes the claim will be read as aluminum being “optional” where “optionally” is treated as not being required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. (See MPEP 2173.05(h)(II)).
In Reference to Claim 13
The indefiniteness stems from the recitation of “in particular aluminum”. It is unclear if “aluminum” is required by the claim language or merely optional as the claim recitations disclose a board and narrow limitation (i.e.-light metal & aluminum).
For Examination purposes the claim will be read as aluminum being “optional” where “optionally” is treated as not being required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. (See MPEP 2173.05(h)(II)).
In Reference to Claim 49
The indefiniteness stems from the recitation of “in particular spring steel”. It is unclear if “spring steel” is required by the claim language or merely optional as the claim recitations disclose a board and narrow limitation (i.e.-resilient material & spring steel).
For Examination purposes the claim will be read as spring steel being “optional” where “optionally” is treated as not being required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. (See MPEP 2173.05(h)(II)).
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) 1-4, 7, 9-14, 17-29, and 38-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friedrich et al. (US 2021/0404457).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner below)
Friedrich et al. (Fried) discloses:
A refrigerant compressor unit, comprising a housing (12) with a housing sleeve (16) closed at the end, the housing sleeve (16) comprising a compressor housing portion (24) in which there are arranged at least two cylinders (54a-c), each with a piston (46a-c) arranged therein, and a drive chamber (32) with drive units arranged therein and driven by a drive shaft (34), wherein the housing sleeve (12) comprises a motor compartment (22) with an electric motor (102) arranged therein and driving the drive shaft (34), wherein a valve plate (64) covering the cylinders (54a-c) is arranged on the housing sleeve (16) and carries a cylinder head (56) on its side opposite the cylinders (54a-c), in which cylinder head (56) at least one inlet chamber (72) and at least one outlet chamber (82) are arranged (See Fried, Paragraphs [0078]-[0086]),
wherein the cylinder head (56) is manufactured from a cast material comprising iron (See Fried, Paragraph [0090] w/respect to ‘steel’), and wherein the housing sleeve (16), together with the compressor housing portion (24) and a cylinder housing block (52), which accommodates the cylinders, and the motor housing portion (22) form a single-piece part, in particular made of lightweight material. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0082] & [0089] w/respect to the cylinder lower part integrally molded and part of the sleeve).
The Examiner notes that steel is a carbon-iron alloy and that the sleeve is a single-piece part which makes up the compressor housing portion, cylinder housing block, and motor housing portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
1045
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
Wherein the cylinder head (56) is manufactured from a cast material comprising an iron-carbon alloy. (See Fried, Paragraph [0090] w/respect to ‘steel’).
The Examiner notes that steel is a carbon-iron alloy.
In Reference to Claim 3
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the cylinder head is manufactured from cast steel. (See Fried, Paragraph [0090] w/respect to ‘steel’).
Fried discloses a steel cylinder head. The limitation of the steel being “cast” is being treated as a product by process limitation. Product-by-process claims are limited ONLY to the structure implied by the cited steps, NOT to the manipulation of the recited steps. It has been held that if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even though the prior product was made by a different process, and the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. (See MPEP 2113).
In Reference to Claim 4
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the cylinder head is manufactured from cast iron. (See Fried, Paragraph [0090] w/respect to ‘steel’).
Fried discloses a steel cylinder head. The limitation of the steel being “cast” is being treated as a product by process limitation. Product-by-process claims are limited ONLY to the structure implied by the cited steps, NOT to the manipulation of the recited steps. It has been held that if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even though the prior product was made by a different process, and the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. (See MPEP 2113).
The Examiner notes that steel is a carbon-iron alloy.
In Reference to Claim 7 (As Best Understood)
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the housing sleeve (16) with the compressor housing portion (24), the cylinder housing block (52) and the motor housing portion (22) is manufactured from light metal, in particular aluminum. (See Fried, Paragraph [0089]).
In Reference to Claim 9
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the housing sleeve (16) with the compressor housing portion (24), the cylinder housing block and the motor housing portion is manufactured as a cast part, in particular from cast light metal.
Fried discloses an aluminum housing sleeve and cylinder block made of a single piece. (See claim 1 rejection above). The limitation of the housing sleeve with the compressor housing portion, the cylinder housing block and the motor housing portion “is manufactured as a cast part, in particular from cast light metal.” is being treated as a product by process limitation. Product-by-process claims are limited ONLY to the structure implied by the cited steps, NOT to the manipulation of the recited steps. It has been held that if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even though the prior product was made by a different process, and the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. (See MPEP 2113).
In Reference to Claim 10
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the cylinders (54a-c) are arranged in succession in the cylinder housing block (52) in a row direction, which in particular runs parallel to the drive shaft (34). (See Fried, Paragraph [0080]).
In Reference to Claim 11
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the cylinder housing block (52) in addition to the cylinders (54a-c) also has recesses (104, and at least recess leading to 104) separate from the cylinders (54a-c).
The Examiner notes that the connection (104) and the recess in the cylinder block that allows refrigerant to reach (104) (see Figures 3-4) constitute recesses in addition to cylinders (54a-c).
In Reference to Claim 12
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the housing sleeve (16) has mounting openings at the ends, which are closed by housing covers (14,18). (See Fried, Paragraph [0078]).
In Reference to Claim 13 (As Best Understood)
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the housing covers (14,18) are manufactured from light metal, in particular aluminum. (See Fried, Paragraph [0089]).
In Reference to Claim 14
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the housing covers (14,18) are curved.
The Examiner notes that the housing covers are round/circular and thus ‘curved’.
In Reference to Claim 17
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein one of the housing covers (18) is provided with at least one contact insert (252,262) for passing through electrical connections (254,264). (See Fried, Paragraphs [0134]-[0135]).
In Reference to Claim 18
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein one of the housing covers (18) is provided with a refrigerant connection (96). (See Fried, Paragraph [0137]).
In Reference to Claim 19
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the housing sleeve (16) is provided with an intermediate wall (A) integrally molded thereon in one piece and separating the drive chamber (32) from the motor compartment (98).
In Reference to Claim 20
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein a bearing portion is provided in the intermediate wall (A) for the drive shaft (34) passing through it. (See Fried, Paragraph [0080])
In Reference to Claim 21
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the cylinder head has a high-pressure connection (94) for refrigerant. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0085]-[0086]).
In Reference to Claim 22
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the cylinder head has a connection (92) for refrigerant at low pressure. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0085]-[0086]).
In Reference to Claim 23
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the sucked-in refrigerant flows (96 to 104) through the motor compartment (98). (See Fried, Paragraph [0086]).
In Reference to Claim 24
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the refrigerant flowing through the motor compartment (98) is fed through a channel (B) to a passage opening (104) in the valve plate (64). (See Fried, Paragraph [0086])
In Reference to Claim 25
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the refrigerant enters an inlet chamber (72m) of the cylinder head (56) after cooling the electric motor (102). (See Fried, Paragraph [0137]).
In Reference to Claim 26
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the channel (B) is molded into the intermediate wall (A).
Fried discloses a channel in an intermediate wall. The limitation of the channel is “molded into the intermediate wall” is being treated as a product by process limitation. Product-by-process claims are limited ONLY to the structure implied by the cited steps, NOT to the manipulation of the recited steps. It has been held that if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even though the prior product was made by a different process, and the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. (See MPEP 2113).
In Reference to Claim 27
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the channel (104) is connected to a channel (B) leading to the drive chamber (32). (See Fried, Paragraph [0086]).
In Reference to Claim 28
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the cylinder housing block (52) has at least one cylinder (54a,54b) for compressing refrigerant starting from low pressure to medium pressure and at least one cylinder (54c) for compressing refrigerant from medium pressure to high pressure. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0085]-[0086]).
In Reference to Claim 29
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the cylinder head has an inlet chamber (72n) for refrigerant at low pressure, an outlet chamber (82m) for refrigerant at medium pressure, an inlet chamber (72m) for refrigerant at medium pressure and an outlet chamber (82h) for refrigerant at high pressure. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0085]-[0086]).
In Reference to Claim 38
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the stator (172) is mounted in the motor housing portion (22) by way of support elements (192,194) which are installed into the motor compartment (98) and which, on the one hand, bear against a stator receiving surface (184) of the motor housing portion (22) and, on the other hand, surround the stator (172) installed into the support elements (192,194) on its outer side and support it resiliently relative to the stator receiving surface (184). (See Fried, Paragraphs [0112]-[0113]).
In Reference to Claim 39
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the support elements (192,194) have resilient bodies (202) which are dimensioned such that they are in an elastically deformed state in all operating states of the motor housing portion (22) occurring during operation of the refrigerant compressor. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0112]-[0113]).
In Reference to Claim 40
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the support elements (192,194) are arranged running around the stator (172) and each support the stator (172) on opposite sides of the rotor axis several times relative to the stator receiving surface (184) of the motor housing portion (22). (See Fried, Paragraphs [0112]-[0115]).
In Reference to Claim 41
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the support elements (192,194) have resilient bodies (202) arranged at defined angular intervals about the rotor axis. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0112]-[0115]).
In Reference to Claim 42
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the resilient bodies (202) are positioned relative to each other by a band material (208) positioning them relative to each other and running around the stator (172). (See Fried, Paragraphs [0115]-[0116]).
In Reference to Claim 43
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the resilient bodies (202) are molded into the band material (208). (See Fried, Paragraphs [0113]-[0115]).
In Reference to Claim 44
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the band material (208) is formed as a ring-like clasp with open ends. (See Fried, Paragraph [0115]).
In Reference to Claim 45
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the resilient bodies (202) have flank regions running at an acute angle to at least one of i) the outer side of the stator (172) and ii) the stator receiving surface (184) between foot regions and support regions, of which the one bears against the outer side of the stator (172) and the other bears against the stator receiving surface (184). (See Fried, Paragraph [0115]).
In Reference to Claim 46
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the resilient bodies (202) are successively molded into a resilient band material (208), so that successive support regions bear against an outer side of the stator (172) or against the stator receiving surface (184) and successive foot regions bear against the stator receiving surface (184) or the outer side of the stator (172). (See Fried, Paragraph [0115]).
In Reference to Claim 47
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the resilient bodies (202) are located between edge regions arranged circumferentially around the stator (172) and the support regions are connected to the edge regions by way of flank regions running at an acute angle to at least one of i) the outer side of the stator (172) and ii) the stator receiving surface (184). (See Fried, Paragraph [0115]).
In Reference to Claim 48
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein, on the one hand, the support regions bear against the outer side of the stator (172) or the stator receiving surface (184) and, on the other hand, the edge regions bear against the stator receiving surface (184) or the outer side of the stator (172). (See Fried, Paragraph [0115]).
In Reference to Claim 49 (As Best Understood)
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the support elements (192,194) are formed from a resilient material, in particular spring steel. (See Fried, Claim 12).
In Reference to Claim 50
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein support elements (192,194) arranged in succession in the direction of the rotor axis are positioned at a spacing from one another in the motor housing portion by a spacer element. (See Fried, Claim 13).
In Reference to Claim 51
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein one of the support elements (192,194) is positioned with respect to its position in the motor housing portion (22) by a step adjoining the stator receiving surface (184). (See Fried, Claim 14).
In Reference to Claim 52
(See Friedrich, Figures 1-2 and 4-9, and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
Fried discloses:
wherein the refrigerant compressor unit is configured for CO2 as refrigerant. (See Fried, Paragraph [0088] and claim 23).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich et al. (US 2021/0404457) in view of Kano et al. (DE112015004598).
In Reference to Claim 5
Fried discloses:
Wherein the cylinder head is manufactured from cast iron (i.e.-steel). (See Fried, Paragraph [0090]).
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
The cylinder head is made from cast iron with graphite.
Kano et al. (Kano) discloses a refrigerant compressor. (See Kano, Paragraph [0002]). Kano discloses making the cylinder head including valve seats of a piston compressor from cast iron with spheroidal graphite. (See Kano, Paragraphs [0057]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the cylinder head, which includes the valve seats, of Fried of cast iron with spheroidal graphite, as both references are directed towards compressor structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using cast iron with spheroidal graphite would have allowed the valve seat to act as a lubricant increasing the life span of the cylinder head of the compressor and suppressed abrasion. (See Kano, Paragraphs [0057]-[0060]).
In Reference to Claim 6
The Fried-Kano combination discloses:
Wherein the cylinder head is manufactured from cast iron with spheroidal graphite or vermicular graphite. (See Kano, Paragraphs [0057]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the cylinder head, which includes the valve seats, of Fried of cast iron with spheroidal graphite, as both references are directed towards compressor structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using cast iron with spheroidal graphite would have allowed the valve seat to act as a lubricant increasing the life span of the cylinder head of the compressor and suppressed abrasion. (See Kano, Paragraphs [0057]-[0060]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich et al. (US 2021/0404457) in view of Iizuka (JP 2007/100632).
In Reference to Claim 8
Fried discloses:
wherein the housing sleeve with the compressor housing portion, the cylinder housing block and the motor housing portion is manufactured from a cast aluminum. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0023], [0082] & [0089] w/respect to the cylinder lower part integrally molded and part of the sleeve).
Fried discloses aluminum. The limitation of the aluminum is “cast” is being treated as a product by process limitation. Product-by-process claims are limited ONLY to the structure implied by the cited steps, NOT to the manipulation of the recited steps. It has been held that if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even though the prior product was made by a different process, and the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. (See MPEP 2113).
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
The aluminum is an aluminum alloy with silicon.
Iizuka discloses a piston refrigerant compressor. (See Iizuka, Paragraph [0001]). Iizuka discloses making the housing of an aluminum alloy containing silicon. (See Iizuka, Paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the aluminum housing of Fried of an aluminum alloy, as both references are directed towards refrigerant compressor structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that aluminum alloys with silicon would have increase the strength and wear resistance of the single piece sleeve and head of Fried. (See Iizuka, Paragraph [0020]).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich et al. (US 2021/0404457) in view of Dittrich (US 2002/0062657).
In Reference to Claim 15
Fried discloses:
A cover (14) that supports the crankshaft (34). (See Fried, Figure 3).
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein one of the housing covers has a concave curvature extending into the housing sleeve.
Dittrich discloses a piston compressor device. (See Dittrich, Abstract). Dittrich discloses a cover that supports the crankshaft that includes a concave curvature that extends into the housing sleeve. (See Dittrich, Figure 1, 11 w/respect to crankshaft holder curved section curving inward).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cover of Dittrich as both references are directed towards piston compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the cover of Dittrich would have been a simple substitution of one known cover structure for another that would yield the predictable result of sealing the housing and supporting the crankshaft.
The Examiner notes that the claim recitations merely require the cover has a concave curvature (anywhere the cover) which extends inward but does not require the entire shape be concave.
In Reference to Claim 16
Fried discloses:
a cover (14) that supports the crankshaft (34). (See Fried, Figure 3).
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein one of the housing covers has a concvex curvature curving away from the housing sleeve.
Dittrich discloses a piston compressor device. (See Dittrich, Abstract). Dittrich discloses a cover that supports the crankshaft that includes a convex curvature that curves away from the housing sleeve. (See Dittrich, Figure 1, 11 w/respect to crankshaft holder curved section curving inward).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cover of Dittrich as both references are directed towards piston compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the cover of Dittrich would have been a simple substitution of one known cover structure for another that would yield the predictable result of sealing the housing and supporting the crankshaft.
The Examiner notes that the claim recitations merely require the cover has a convex curvature (anywhere the cover) which extends away but does not require the entire shape be convex.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich et al. (US 2021/0404457) in view of Morse (US 4,759,692).
In Reference to Claim 30
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the cylinder head is provided with a pressure relief valve connected to the outlet chamber for refrigerant compressed to high pressure.
Morse discloses a refrigerant compressor device. (See Morse, Abstract). Morse discloses a cylinder head pressure relief valve connected to the outlet chamber for refrigerant compressed to high pressure. (See Morse, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a pressure relief valve to the cylinder head of Fried, as both references are directed towards refrigerant compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a pressure relief valve would have prevented over pressure damage from occurring to the device protecting it from damage. (See Morse, Column 1, Lines 12-24).
In Reference to Claim 31
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the cylinder head is provided with a pressure relief valve connected to the inlet chamber.
Morse discloses a refrigerant compressor device. (See Morse, Abstract). Morse discloses a cylinder head pressure relief valve connected to the inlet chamber (via the outlet chamber/cylinder) for refrigerant compressed to high pressure. (See Morse, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a pressure relief valve to the cylinder head of Fried, as both references are directed towards refrigerant compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a pressure relief valve would have prevented over pressure damage from occurring to the device protecting it from damage. (See Morse, Column 1, Lines 12-24).
Claim(s) 32-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich et al. (US 2021/0404457) in view of Friedrich et al. (US 20210003321).
In Reference to Claim 32
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the cylinder housing block is arranged on the housing sleeve in such a way that the cylinders extend transversely to a vertical direction.
Friedrich et al. (Fried’321) discloses a piston compressor device. (See Fried’321, Abstract). Fried’321 discloses that the piston and cylinder heads may be arranged transversely to a vertical direction. (See Fried’321, Paragraphs [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a piston/cylinder head configuration which is transverse to a vertical direction (i.e.-V shape, oppositely opposed) as both references are directed towards piston compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that V configurations and horizontally opposed configurations allow the compressor to achieve advantageous torque distributions improving operation and efficiency. (See Fried’321, Paragraph [0037]).
In Reference to Claim 33
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the housing is arranged in an operating position such that the cylinder housing block, the valve plate and the cylinder head are arranged relative to the housing sleeve in a direction transverse to a vertical direction on one side of the housing sleeve.
Friedrich et al. (Fried’321) discloses a piston compressor device. (See Fried’321, Abstract). Fried’321 discloses that the piston and cylinder heads may be arranged transversely to a vertical direction. (See Fried’321, Paragraphs [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a piston/cylinder head configuration which is transverse to a vertical direction (i.e.-V shape, oppositely opposed) as both references are directed towards piston compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that V configurations and horizontally opposed configurations allow the compressor to achieve advantageous torque distributions improving operation and efficiency. (See Fried’321, Paragraph [0037]).
In Reference to Claim 34
Fried discloses:
A drive chamber (32) including and beneath the crankshaft and pistons. (See Fried,
Fried discloses the claimed invention except: wherein a lubricant bath forming in the drive chamber of the compressor housing portion is arranged in the vertical direction below the cylinders and at a spacing therefrom.
Fried’321 discloses a piston compressor device. (See Fried’321, Abstract). Fried’321 discloses forming a lubricant bath in the drive chamber. (See Fried’321, Figure 4, Paragraphs [0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the lubrication system of Fried’321 to the device of Fried, as both references are directed towards piston compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the lubrication sump and system of Fried’321 would have provided adequate lubricant to the moving components of Fried improving the wear and lifespan of the compressor device. (See Fried’321, Paragraph [0123]).
In Reference to Claim 35
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein a lubricant feed unit is provided in the compressor housing portion and receives lubricant from the motor compartment and feeds it to the lubricant bath in the compressor housing portion.
Friedrich et al. (Fried’321) discloses a piston compressor device. (See Fried’321, Abstract). Fried’321 discloses that the piston and cylinder heads may be arranged transversely to a vertical direction. (See Fried’321, Paragraphs [0037]). Additionally, Fried’321 discloses a vertical piston arrangement with a lubricant feed unit located between the motor compartment and a compressor housing portion bath. (See Freid’321, Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a piston/cylinder head configuration with lubricant bath and pumping system as both references are directed towards piston compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that V configurations and horizontally opposed configurations allow the compressor to achieve advantageous torque distributions improving operation and efficiency and that the lubricant system will ensure that adequate lubricant reaches all moving components. (See Fried’321, Paragraphs [0037], [0113]-[0114]).
In Reference to Claim 36
Fried discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the housing is provided with at least two mounting lugs which permit mounting of the housing in such a way that the cylinder housing block, the valve plate and the cylinder head are arranged relative to the housing sleeve in the direction transverse to a vertical direction on one side on the housing sleeve.
Friedrich et al. (Fried’321) discloses a piston compressor device. (See Fried’321, Abstract). Fried’321 discloses that the piston and cylinder heads may be arranged transversely to a vertical direction. (See Fried’321, Paragraphs [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a piston/cylinder head configuration which is transverse to a vertical direction (i.e.-V shape, oppositely opposed) as both references are directed towards piston compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that V configurations and horizontally opposed configurations allow the compressor to achieve advantageous torque distributions improving operation and efficiency. (See Fried’321, Paragraph [0037]).
The Examiner notes that any lugs used to seal the covers on the sleeve for the configuration of the Fried-Fried’321 would constitute lugs which permit mounting in such way as described above as all the lugs are required for such mounting.
In Reference to Claim 37 (As understood via objection above)
The Fried-Fried’321 combination discloses:
wherein the mounting lugs are arranged on the housing sleeve. (See Fried, Paragraph [0078]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tomell, Friedrich’463, Sishtla, Hayashi, Aoki, Sawyer, and Terwilleger show refrigerant compressor devices within the general state of the art of invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746