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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under Ascani have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ascani and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
The Office Action is made Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ascani (US PGPub No. 2018/0258922).
Ascani teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a compressor (100) comprising: a cylinder body (110) having a first air suction hole (113) formed at a cylinder cover of the cylinder body (see FIG. 3a-b), the first air suction hole being configured to connect to a first refrigeration flow path (main circuit M; paragraph 44); and a piston assembly comprising a piston (111) movably disposed in the cylinder body (paragraph 25), an operating cavity being formed between the piston and a bottom of the cylinder body (see FIG. 3, between piston 111 and cylinder 110), the piston having a top dead center at the cylinder cover of the cylinder body (“S”; FIG. 3D; paragraph 25) and a bottom dead center away from the cylinder cover of the cylinder body (I; FIG. 3c; paragraph 25) in a movement stroke, and a distance between the top dead center and the bottom dead center being S, wherein the cylinder body or the piston has a second air suction hole configured to connect to a second refrigeration flow path, the second air suction hole being configured to connect to the operating cavity when the piston moves to a predetermined position, and a distance between the piston at the predetermined position and the top dead center being L1, where L1>0.5 S (see FIG. 3b annotated below for example, in which the line L1 is clearly greater than half of the line S);
While FIG. 3b of Ascani appears to show the second air suction hole at a position satisfying the claimed dimension, Ascani does not explicitly teach the distance L1 within the claimed range of L1>0.5 S;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to modify the compressor of Ascani to have a distance between the piston and the top dead center be within the range L1>0.5 S since it has been held that …” where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device…” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case the compressor of Ascani would not operate differently when locating the second suction hole at a distance within the claimed range since the hole is intended to be located along the internal wall of the compression chamber (see FIG. 3). Further, the location of the suction hole will affect the amount of fluid being pulled into the compression chamber and therefore would an obvious design choice to control said intake.
PNG
media_image1.png
648
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
limitations from claim 2, wherein the second air suction hole penetrates a sidewall of the cylinder body, a distance between the second air suction hole and the top dead center being L2, where L2>0.5 S (see FIG. 3b as annotated below);
PNG
media_image2.png
648
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchanan (US Patent No. 2,123,497) in view of Ascani (US PGPub No. 2018/0258922).
Buchanan teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a compressor (17) comprising: a cylinder body (19) having a first air suction hole (26) formed at a cylinder cover (25) of the cylinder body, the first air suction hole being configured to connect to a first refrigeration flow path (via 28); and a piston assembly comprising a piston (22) movably disposed in the cylinder body (see FIG. 2), an operating cavity being formed between the piston and a bottom of the cylinder body (FIG. 2), the piston having a top dead center at the cylinder cover of the cylinder body and a bottom dead center away from the cylinder cover of the cylinder body in a movement stroke (Page 1 C. 1 Lines 36-41 teaching a reciprocation of the piston), and a distance between the top dead center and the bottom dead center being S (there is inherently a distance between the top and bottom of the piston stroke), wherein the cylinder body or the piston has a second air suction hole (21) configured to connect to a second refrigeration flow path (via 31), the second air suction hole being configured to connect to the operating cavity when the piston moves to a predetermined position (48-50);
Buchanan does not explicitly teach a top and bottom dead center and therefore des not teach that a distance between the suction holes and the TDC/BDC have the claimed ratio;
However, Ascani teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a compressor (100) comprising: a cylinder body (110) having a first air suction hole (113) formed at a cylinder cover of the cylinder body (see FIG. 3a-b), the first air suction hole being configured to connect to a first refrigeration flow path (main circuit M; paragraph 44); and a piston assembly comprising a piston (111) movably disposed in the cylinder body (paragraph 25), an operating cavity being formed between the piston and a bottom of the cylinder body (see FIG. 3, between piston 111 and cylinder 110), the piston having a top dead center at the cylinder cover of the cylinder body (“S”; FIG. 3D; paragraph 25) and a bottom dead center away from the cylinder cover of the cylinder body (I; FIG. 3c; paragraph 25) in a movement stroke, and a distance between the top dead center and the bottom dead center being S, wherein the cylinder body or the piston has a second air suction hole configured to connect to a second refrigeration flow path, the second air suction hole being configured to connect to the operating cavity when the piston moves to a predetermined position, and a distance between the piston at the predetermined position and the top dead center being L1, where L1>0.5 S (see FIG. 3b annotated below for example, in which the line L1 is clearly greater than half of the line S);
While FIG. 3b of Ascani appears to show the second air suction hole at a position satisfying the claimed dimension, Ascani does not explicitly teach the distance L1 within the claimed range of L1>0.5 S;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to modify the compressor of Ascani to have a distance between the piston and the top dead center be within the range L1>0.5 S since it has been held that …” where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device…” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case the compressor of Ascani would not operate differently when locating the second suction hole at a distance within the claimed range since the hole is intended to be located along the internal wall of the compression chamber (see FIG. 3). Further, the location of the suction hole will affect the amount of fluid being pulled into the compression chamber and therefore would an obvious design choice to control said intake.
PNG
media_image1.png
648
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to choose locations for the suction holes of Buchanan, such as those that result in the claimed ratio as taught by Ascani, as a matter of design choice in order to control the timing and quantity of each of the pumped fluids.
Buchanan further teaches:
limitations from claim 3, wherein a sidewall of the piston (22) covers and seals the second air suction hole (21) when the piston is located at the top dead center (FIG. 2; Page 2 C. 2 Lines 61-64);
limitations from claim 6, further comprising: a first air suction tube (28), the first refrigeration flow path being in communication with the first air suction hole (26) through the first air suction tube (Page 1 C. 2 Lines 9-15); and a second air suction tube (31), the second refrigeration flow path being in communication with the second air suction hole (21) through the second air suction tube (Page 1 C. 2 Lines 15-21);
limitations from claim 8, a refrigeration device (FIG. 1) comprising the compressor (17) according to claim 1;
limitations from claim 9, wherein the refrigeration device comprises a refrigerator (10, 11);
limitations from claim 10, wherein an intake pressure of the first air suction hole is P1, and an intake pressure of the second air suction hole is P2, where 1<P2/P1≤6 (see Page 1 C. 2 Lines 9-27 in which the pressure at inlet 26 is a low pressure and pressure at inlet 21 is a high pressure. While Buchanan does not teach an upper range of the pressure ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration compressors to choose pressures for each of the inlets based on the size and temperature of the respective connected refrigerant circuits and the device to be cooled);
Regarding claim 5:
Buchanan does not teach a particular diameter for the suction holes;
However, the size of fluid openings such as suction holes are known to affect the flow through said openings; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose a diameter for the suction holes of Buchanan as a matter of design choice, in order to achieve a desired flow from the compressor into the cylinder at each opening based on the requirements of system being cooled; see MPEP 2144.04 Section IV. A and B.
Regarding claim 7:
Buchanan does not teach a particular ID and OD for the suction tubing;
However, the size of a fluid tubing is commonly known to affect both the flow of fluid through the tubing as well as the space required for the tubing in a system; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to choose a tubing size for the compressor of Buchanan as a matter of design choice in order to control the flow of fluid through the tubing based on the requirements of system being cooled; see MPEP 2144.04 Section IV. A and B.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ascani (US PGPub No. 2018/0258922) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and in further view of Fairbairn et al (US PGPub No. 2018/0252193).
Ascani does not teach that the suction ports are circularly shaped;
However, Fairbairn teaches a fuel pump (FIG. 4), wherein a fluid opening (33) in the housing is formed as a circular opening (paragraph 47);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to form the openings in the compressor of Ascani as circular shapes, as taught by Fairbairn, in order to provide a shape that evenly manage stresses about the opening (paragraph 70 of Fairbairn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 9399988, 6318977, and 2334939 teach piston compressors having multiple suction ports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746