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 7/24/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-18 and 20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, ,7, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata et al. (US5829262) in view of Kazumiki et al. (JP2013204951A).
Regarding Claim 1, Urata teaches a receiver [fig 11] comprising:
a housing having a space therein [by inspection at fig 11];
an inflow pipe [25a] that supplies a fluid to the housing [col 14, line 63-col 15, line 25; fig 11]; and
an outflow pipe [25b] that discharges the fluid stored in the housing to an outside, [col 14, line 63-col 15, line 25; fig 11] wherein the outflow pipe is inserted into the housing by a predetermined length or more [see fig 11]; and wherein a plurality of outflow holes [26] are formed in the outflow pipe in a direction extending toward an inside of the housing [col 14, line 63-col 15, line 25; fig 11];
wherein an outflow pipe hole is formed in the housing at a location where the outflow pipe is disposed [by inspection at fig 11].
Urata does not explicitly teach wherein an interval at which the plurality of outflow holes is spaced apart from each other increases in a direction toward the outflow pipe hole.
However, Kazumiki teaches an air conditioning apparatus having an accumulator [8; 0017; 0001] having wherein an interval at which the plurality of outflow holes [at least holes 23, 24, 25] is spaced apart from each other increases in a direction toward the outflow pipe hole [0034; fig 5] 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. maintain the amount of oil in the system at a certain level [0035].
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 Urata to have wherein an interval at which the plurality of outflow holes is spaced apart from each other increases in a direction toward the outflow pipe hole in view of the teachings of Kazumiki 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. maintain the amount of oil in the system at a certain level.
Regarding Claim 2, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Urata teaches wherein the predetermined length by which the outflow pipe is inserted into the housing is equal to or more than a half of a length of the housing in a vertical direction [see fig 11].
Regarding Claim 3, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Urata teaches wherein the outflow pipe [25b] extends inside of the housing in a vertical direction [col 14, line 63-col 15, line 25; fig 11].
Regarding Claim 4, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Urata teaches wherein the predetermined length by which the outflow pipe [25b] is inserted into the housing in a vertical direction is formed to be equal to or more than a half of a length of the housing in the vertical direction [col 14, line 63-col 15, line 25; fig 11].
Regarding Claim 7, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Urata teaches wherein the housing includes an upper wall, a lower wall spaced downwards from the upper wall, and a circumferential wall that connects the upper wall and the lower wall, wherein the outflow pipe penetrates the upper wall and extends downwards; and wherein a length by which the outflow pipe extends downwards from the upper wall is larger than a half of a length by which the circumferential wall extends in a vertical direction [by inspection at fig 11].
Regarding Claim 8, Urata teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Urata teaches wherein the housing includes an upper wall, a lower wall spaced downwards from the upper wall, and a circumferential wall that connects the upper wall and the lower wall; and the outflow pipe penetrates the upper wall and extends downwards [see fig. 11].
Regarding Claim 9, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 above and Urata teaches wherein the length with by which the outflow pipe extends downwards from the upper wall is larger than a half of a length by which the circumferential wall extends in a vertical direction [see fig 11].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata et al. (US5829262) and Kazumiki et al. (JP2013204951A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (JP2018004093A).
Regarding Claim 5, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and but does not teach wherein the plurality of outflow holes has diameters which decrease in the direction toward the outflow pipe hole.
However, Watanabe teaches an accumulator [0001] having where a plurality of outflow holes [at least hole 5, hole 7] has diameter which decrease in the direction toward the outflow pipe exit [0045; fig 5; where at least the upper most hole 7 is smaller than hole 5] 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 where it is possible to prevent liquid refrigerant from entering the compressor [0050].
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 Urata to have wherein the plurality of outflow holes has diameters which decrease in the direction toward the outflow pipe hole in view of the teachings of Watanabe 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 where it is possible to prevent liquid refrigerant from entering the compressor.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata et al. (US5829262) and Kazumiki et al. (JP2013204951A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yusheng et al. (EP3879208A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the housing includes an upper wall, a lower wall spaced downwards from the upper wall, and a circumferential wall that connects upper wall and the lower wall; and wherein the outflow pipe penetrates the circumferential wall and extends in an upward direction.
However, Yusheng teaches a receiver i.e. separator 100 [0002; fig 3] having wherein the housing includes an upper wall, a lower wall disposed to be spaced downwards from the upper wall [see fig 3 where the extents of H0 define an upper and lower wall], and a circumferential wall connecting the upper wall and the lower wall [see fig 3 where 101 define a circumference wall]; and the outflow pipe [103] penetrates the circumferential wall and extends in an upper direction [0040-0042; fig 3] 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. providing structure that ensures long-term reliable operation of the compressor [0042].
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 Urata to have wherein the housing includes an upper wall, a lower wall spaced downwards from the upper wall, and a circumferential wall that connects upper wall and the lower wall; and wherein the outflow pipe penetrates the circumferential wall and extends in an upward direction in view of the teachings of Yusheng 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. providing structure that ensures long-term reliable operation of the compressor.
Regarding Claim 11, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 above and Yusheng teaches wherein the outflow pipe includes an inner outflow pipe [at 132] disposed inside of the housing; and wherein the inner outflow pipe is inclined in the upward direction inside of the housing [0040-0042; fig 3].
Regarding Claim 12, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 above and Yusheng teaches wherein the outflow pipe includes an inner outflow pipe [at 132] disposed inside of the housing; and the inner outflow pipe has a form is bent in the upward direction inside the housing [0040-0042; fig 3].
Regarding Claim 13, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 above and Yusheng teaches wherein the outflow pipe [103] is connected to the circumferential wall at a lower side of a vertical center of the circumferential wall [101; by inspection at fig 3]; and a length by which the outflow pipe is disposed inside of the housing and extends in a vertical direction inside the housing is larger than a half of a length with by the circumferential wall extends in the vertical direction [by inspection at fig 3].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata et al. (US5829262) and Yusheng et al. (EP3879208A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Utsui et al. (JP2020034249A).
Regarding Claim 14, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 above and Yusheng teaches wherein the outflow pipe 103] includes a connection pipe [at 133] connected to the housing, and an extension pipe [at 132] that extends in the upward direction inside of the housing [0040-0042; fig 3]. However, Urata does not teach wherein the plurality of outflow holes is spaced apart from each other in the extension pipe in a direction in which the extension pipe extends.
However, Utsui teaches a refrigeration cycle device having a receiver [see 0023 where accumulator 28 acts as a receiver] and an outflow pipe [42; 0017] having where a plurality of outflow holes [30a] is spaced apart from each other in an extension pipe [30] in a direction in which the extension pipe [0023; fig 4] 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. providing structure that reduces the chance of disproportionation within the compressor [0058].
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 Urata to have wherein the plurality of outflow holes is spaced apart from each other in the extension pipe in a direction in which the extension pipe extends in view of the teachings of Utsui 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. providing structure that reduces the chance of disproportionation within the compressor.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata et al. (US5829262), Yusheng et al. (EP3879208A1) and Utsui et al. (JP2020034249A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bottum (US3212289).
Regarding Claim 15, Urata teaches the invention of claim 14 above but does not teach wherein the outflow pipe further includes a reduction pipe that connects the connection pipe and the extension pipe, and having a pipe diameter which is reduced in a direction in which the extension pipe extends, and wherein a pipe diameter of the extension pipe is smaller than a pipe diameter of the connection pipe.
However, Bottum teaches an accumulator [14; fig 1] having wherein an outflow pipe [26] further includes a reduction pipe [24] connecting a connection pipe [22] and the extension pipe [at least a portion of outflow pipe 26], and having a pipe diameter which is reduced in the direction of the extension pipe [see fig 3]; and a pipe diameter of the extension pipe is formed to be smaller than a pipe diameter of the connection pipe [col 2, lines 14-65; see fig 3; where piping of a receiver can be achieved in a similar manner] 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. providing structure that has compact construction.
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 Urata to have wherein the outflow pipe further includes a reduction pipe that connects the connection pipe and the extension pipe, and having a pipe diameter which is reduced in a direction in which the extension pipe extends, and wherein a pipe diameter of the extension pipe is smaller than a pipe diameter of the connection pipe in view of the teachings of Bottum 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. providing structure that has compact construction.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata et al. (US5829262) in view of Hartfield et al. (US2018/0038618).
Regarding Claim 16, Urata teaches a receiver [fig 11] comprising:
a housing having a space therein [by inspection at fig 11];
an inflow pipe [25a] that supplies a fluid to the housing [col 14, line 63-col 15, line 25; fig 11]; and
an outflow pipe [25b] that discharges the fluid stored in the housing to an outside, [col 14, line 63-col 15, line 25; fig 11] wherein the outflow pipe is inserted into the housing by a predetermined length or more [see fig 11]. Urata does not teach wherein an outflow pipe slit that extends in a direction extending into an inside of the housing is formed in the outflow pipe;
and wherein the outflow pipe slit has a form in which the outflow slit is narrowed as the outflow pipe extends in a direction toward an outflow pipe hole.
However, Hartfield teaches an oil separator having an outflow pipe [205; 0002; fig 3] wherein an outflow pipe slit [204] that extends in a direction extending into an inside of a housing is formed in the outflow pipe [205; 0068; fig 3] 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 structure that reduces gas velocities and thereby eliminate undesired pressure drop [0056].
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 Urata to have wherein an outflow pipe slit that extends in a direction extending into an inside of the housing is formed in the outflow pipe;
and wherein the outflow pipe slit has a form in which the outflow slit is narrowed as the outflow pipe extends in a direction toward an outflow pipe hole in view of the teachings of Hartfield 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 structure that reduces gas velocities and thereby eliminate undesired pressure drop.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata et al. (US5829262) and Hartfield et al. (US2018/0038618) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yukai et al. (CN201666701U).
Regarding Claim 17, Urata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 16 above but does not teach wherein an end portion of the outflow pipe has a closed form.
However, Yukai teaches a receiver [0001] having wherein an end portion of the outflow pipe [2] has a closed form [0035; fig 1] 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 structure that achieves effective gas separation [0032].
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 Urata to have wherein an end portion of the outflow pipe has a closed form in view of the teachings of Yukai 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 structure that achieves effective gas separation.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwangho et al. (KR20200061005A) in view of Urata et al. (US5829262) and Lee et al. (KR20160013716A).
Regarding Claim 18, Kwangho teaches an air conditioner [fig 1], comprising:
an accumulator [80] that temporarily stores refrigerant and supplies gas-phase refrigerant to a compressor [10; 0053; fig 1]; and a receiver [48] disposed above the accumulator [80], and having a space that stores the refrigerant [0053; fig 1], wherein the receiver includes:
a housing having a space therein [0105]; an inflow pipe [having valve 46] that supplies the refrigerant to the housing [0105]; and an outflow pipe [having valve 49] that discharges the refrigerant stored in the housing to the accumulator [0068; 0069; fig 1], wherein the outflow pipe is inserted into the housing by a predetermined length or more [0068; 0069; fig 1];
wherein the housing includes a circumferential wall that extends above the accumulator, and an upper wall that covers an upper end of the circumferential wall, wherein the outflow pipe is connected to a lower portion of the circumferential wall [by inspection at fig. 1].
Kwangho does not teach wherein the outflow pipe comprises an outflow pipe slit or a plurality of outflow holes are formed therein to extend toward an inside of the housing, and
where the outflow pipe extends upwards inside of the housing, wherein a portion of the outflow pipe disposed inside of the housing is bent in an upward direction inside of the housing.
However, Urata teaches a receiver [fig 11] having wherein an outflow pipe [25] comprises a plurality of outflow holes [26] formed therein to extend toward an inside of the receiver [col 14, line 63-col 15, line 25; fig 11; where the limitation was recited 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 structure that achieves effective gas separation.
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 Kwangho to have wherein the outflow pipe comprises an outflow pipe slit or a plurality of outflow holes are formed therein to extend toward an inside of the housing in view of the teachings of Urata 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 structure that achieves effective gas separation.
Also, Lee teaches an oil separator [0001] having where an outflow pipe [440] extends upwards inside of an housing, wherein a portion of the outflow pipe disposed inside of the housing is bent in an upward direction inside of the housing [0050-0056; fig 4] 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. providing where separation efficiency of the refrigerant and the oil is increased [0056].
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 Kwangho to have where the outflow pipe extends upwards inside of the housing, wherein a portion of the outflow pipe disposed inside of the housing is bent in an upward direction inside of the housing in view of the teachings of Lee 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. providing where separation efficiency of the refrigerant and the oil is increased.
Regarding Claim 20, Kwangho, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 above and Kwangho teaches wherein the outflow pipe and the inflow pipe are connected to the circumferential wall, and wherein the outflow pipe is connected to the circumferential wall at a location equal to or lower than the inflow pipe [by inspection at fig. 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kanazawa et al. (JP2013137164A), cited to teach where an oil return hole may function as a pressure equalizing hole. See 0069.
Wada (JP2014092078A), cited to teach an accumulator having an oil outlet pipe that curves upward. See at least fig 3.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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