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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the other side " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as – another side or other side --.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "refrigerant" in line 5 is same or different than in line 3 of same claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as same and is being considered as -- the refrigerant --.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the center of the body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as -- a center of the body --.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as -- a pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe --.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as -- a pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe --.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a center of the pipe” in line 2, which is confusing as it is unclear which particular pipe constitute the center. For examination purposes, it is considered as -- a center of the first inner supply pipe --.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the center of the pipe” in line 3, which is confusing as it is unclear which particular pipe constitute the center. For examination purposes, it is considered as -- a center of the second inner supply pipe --.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the center of the body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the center of the body" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the other end portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as -- a pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe --.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the other side " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as – another side or other side --.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "refrigerant" in line 5 is same or different than in line 3 of same claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as same and is being considered as -- the refrigerant --.
Due to the excessive and numerous indefinite issues, the above list is potentially not complete and the Examiner requests that the applicant proof-read all claims for any remaining issues.
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 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 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2006/0280622).
In regards to claim 1, Lee discloses an oil separator (Fig. 1) comprising: a body (1) having a space therein; a refrigerant discharge pipe (2) connected to one side (upper side) of the body (1), and discharging refrigerant which exists in the space (refer to par. 38); a supply pipe (3) connected to the other side (lateral side) of the body (1), and sending refrigerant including ejected from a compressor to the space (refer to par. 44); and an oil discharge pipe (4) connected to another side (lower side) of the body (2), and discharging oil which exists in the space (refer to par. 40), wherein the supply pipe (3) includes a first inner supply pipe (see Fig. 2: straight pipe portion of 3 within the side wall 12) extended from a circumferential surface (12) of the body (1) to an inside having the space (see Fig. 2), and a second inner supply pipe (an end pipe portion 34) disposed in the space (refer to par. 44), disposed to be spaced apart (close to the side wall 12; pars. 44-46) from the circumferential surface (12) of the body (1), and having a form bent in a central direction of the body (refer to par. 44; also, see Fig. 2).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2, 5-10, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2006/0280622) in view of SHIMASAKI (US 2017/0051957).
In regards to claim 2, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a center of a curvature of the second inner supply pipe is disposed in the same direction as the center of the body based on the second inner supply pipe. SHIMASAKI teaches a center (C’) of a curvature of the second inner supply pipe (bend portion 25 of injection pipe 23) and the center (C) of the body (Figs. 2-3). Therefore, a person skilled in the art at the time of invention would recognize that the directional arrangement of a center of a curvature of the second inner supply pipe and the center of the body would be determined by design factors such as the amount of space available in the body or the oil separation area required for a particular application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the center direction arrangement of Lee’s in view of SHIMASAKI, since the direction arrangement of the center of a curvature is determined by design factors such as the amount of space available in the body or the oil separation area required for a particular application.
Further, rearrangement of parts only involves routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) (citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 70 (C.C.P.A. 1950) (rearranging direction of center of a curvature pipe vs the center oil separator body).
In regards to claim 5, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a length with which the first inner supply pipe is extended in a longitudinal direction along a center of the pipe is formed to be larger than a length with which the second inner supply pipe is extended along the center of the pipe. Lee does however teach in par. 53 that the refrigerant inflow pipe 8 is rectilinearly extended from the bent portion 83 to a designated length, thereby producing a rectilinearly-extended end 84. The length of the rectilinearly-extended end 84 of the refrigerant inflow pipe 8 is at least larger than the inner diameter of the refrigerant inflow pipe 8. Therefore, the pipe length and effective diameter are considered geometric variables of the pipe. It is well known in the art of fluid flow that adjusting the diameter and the length of a pipe will affect the flow of fluid within the pipe and are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is minimizing the disturbance of the flow of the mixture (par. 53). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. having the pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe and the pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe and design factors involved, were disclosed in the prior art by Lee, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee, by setting a length with which the first inner supply pipe is extended in a longitudinal direction along a center of the pipe to be formed to be larger than a length with which the second inner supply pipe is extended along the center of the pipe.
In regards to claim 6, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein at an end portion of the second inner supply pipe, a virtual straight line extended along the center of the second inner supply pipe and a tangent line of the circumference surface of the body at a location most adjacent to the end portion of the second inner supply pipe are parallel to each other, or form an inclination angle less than 30 degrees.
SHIMASAKI teaches an end portion (outlet end 23a) of the second inner supply pipe (injection pipe 23), a virtual straight line extended (extension 24) along the center of the second inner supply pipe (23) and a tangent line of the circumference surface of the body (container body 21) at a location most adjacent to the end portion (23a) of the second inner supply pipe (as can be seen in Fig. 3).
Therefore, a person skilled in the art at the time of invention would recognize that the arrangement of an end portion of the second inner supply pipe, a virtual straight line extended along the center of the second inner supply pipe and a tangent line of the circumference surface of the body at a location most adjacent to the end portion of the second inner supply pipe would be determined by design factors such as the amount of space available in the body or the oil separation area required for a particular application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arrangement of Lee’s oil separator body in view of SHIMASAKI, since the arrangement of an end portion of the second inner supply pipe, a virtual straight line extended along the center of the second inner supply pipe and a tangent line of the circumference surface of the body at a location most adjacent to the end portion of the second inner supply pipe to be parallel to each other is determined by design factors such as the amount of space available in the body or the oil separation area required for a particular application. Further, rearrangement of parts only involves routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) (citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 70 (C.C.P.A. 1950).
In regards to claim 7, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the supply pipe is disposed to be spaced apart from a virtual first center line which is in line with a direction in which the supply pipe is inserted into the body, and passes through the center of the body.
SHIMASAKI teaches wherein the supply pipe (injection pipe 23; Fig. 3) is disposed to be spaced apart (to be parallel; pars. 55 and 82) from a virtual first center line (rp2) which is in line with a direction in which the supply pipe is inserted into the body (container body 21), and passes through the center (O) of the body (21).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil separator of Lee such that a pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe is formed to be smaller than a pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe as taught by SHIMASAKI in order to increase the oil separation efficiency (refer to par. 84 of SHIMASAKI).
In regards to claim 8, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 7, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first inner supply pipe passes through the center of the body, and extends to pass through a second center line perpendicular to the first center line. SHIMASAKI teaches wherein the first inner supply pipe (extension portion 24 of injection pipe 23; Fig. 3) passes through the center (O) of the body (21), and extends to pass through a second center line (rp1) perpendicular to the first center line (rp2), (refer to pars. 15, 55 and 82).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil separator of Lee such that the first inner supply pipe passes through the center of the body, and extends to pass through a second center line perpendicular to the first center line as taught by SHIMASAKI in order to increase the oil separation efficiency (refer to par. 84 of SHIMASAKI).
In regards to claim 9, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 8, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second inner supply pipe extends to pass through the first center line. SHIMASAKI teaches wherein the second inner supply pipe (bend portion 25 of injection pipe 23) extends to pass through the first center line (rp2), (as can be seen in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil separator of Lee such the second inner supply pipe extends to pass through the first center line as taught by SHIMASAKI in order to increase the oil separation efficiency (refer to par. 84 of SHIMASAKI).
In regards to claim 10, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 8, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second inner supply pipe is bent at a location passing through the second center line, and extended up to a location passing through the first center line.
SHIMASAKI teaches wherein the second inner supply pipe (bend portion 25 of injection pipe 23) is bent at a location passing through the second center line (rp1), and extended up to a location passing through the first center line (rp2), (as can be seen in Fig. 3; pars. 55 and 82).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil separator of Lee such the second inner supply pipe extends to pass through the first center line as taught by SHIMASAKI in order to increase the oil separation efficiency (refer to par. 84 of SHIMASAKI).
In regards to claim 12, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a maximum length with which the second inner supply pipe which protrudes outwards from a circumferential surface of the first inner supply pipe is formed to be smaller than the pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe. Lee does however teach in par. 53 that the refrigerant inflow pipe 8 is rectilinearly extended from the bent portion 83 to a designated length, thereby producing a rectilinearly-extended end 84. The length of the rectilinearly-extended end 84 of the refrigerant inflow pipe 8 is at least larger than the inner diameter of the refrigerant inflow pipe 8. Therefore, the pipe length and effective diameter are considered geometric variables of the pipe. It is well known in the art of fluid flow that adjusting the diameter and the length of a pipe will affect the flow of fluid within the pipe and are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is minimizing the disturbance of the flow of the mixture (par. 53). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. having the pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe and the pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe and design factors involved, were disclosed in the prior art by Lee, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee, by setting a maximum length with which the second inner supply pipe which protrudes outwards from a circumferential surface of the first inner supply pipe is formed to be smaller than the pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe.
In regards to claim 13, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein at a location where the center of the body and the center of the first inner supply pipe are most adjacent to each other, an interval by which the center of the body and the center of the first inner supply pipe are spaced apart from each other is formed to be smaller than a half of a radius of the body. SHIMASAKI does however teach wherein at a location where the center (O) of the body (21) and the center of the first inner supply pipe (extension portion 24 of injection pipe 23; Fig. 3) are most adjacent (near) to each other, an interval by which the center (O) of the body (21) and the center (O) of the first inner supply pipe (24) are spaced apart (parallel; pars. 55 and 82) from each other is formed to be smaller than a half of a radius of the body. Therefore, an interval by which the center of the body and the center of the first inner supply pipe are spaced apart from each other is recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is increasing the oil separation efficiency (par. 84). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. an interval by which the center of the body and the center of the first inner supply pipe are spaced apart from each other is formed and design factors involved, were disclosed in the prior art by SHIMASAKI, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee, by setting an interval by which the center of the body and the center of the first inner supply pipe are spaced apart from each other is formed to be smaller than a half of a radius of the body.
In regards to claim 19, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lee teaches wherein the refrigerant discharge pipe penetrates a refrigerant discharge pipe hole (first insertion hole 11b) formed at an upper portion of the body (Fig. 1), and extends to the inside of the space of the body (as can be seen in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 20, Lee discloses an oil separator (Fig. 1) comprising: a body (1) having a space therein; a refrigerant discharge pipe (2) connected to one side (upper side) of the body (1), and discharging refrigerant which exists in the space (refer to par. 38); a supply pipe (3) connected to the other side (lateral side) of the body (1), and sending refrigerant including ejected from a compressor to the space (refer to par. 44); and an oil discharge pipe (4) connected to another side (lower side) of the body, and discharging oil which exists in the space (refer to par. 40), wherein the supply pipe (3) includes an inner supply pipe (see Fig. 2: portion of supply pipe 3 within the side wall 12) extended from a circumferential surface (12) of the body (1) to an inside having the space (see Fig. 2), and an end portion (an end 34) of the inner supply pipe (3) forms a curved surface bent (refer to par. 44), but fails to explicitly teach the inner supply pipe is extended up to a location passing through a center of the body, and the end portion of the inner supply pipe forms the curved surface bent in a direction in which the center of the body is positioned at a location passing through the center of the body. SHIMASAKI teaches an end portion (outlet end 23a) of the second inner supply pipe (injection pipe 23), a virtual straight line extended (extension 24) along the center of the second inner supply pipe (23) and a tangent line of the circumference surface of the body (container body 21) at a location most adjacent to the end portion (23a) of the second inner supply pipe (as can be seen in Fig. 3).
Therefore, a person skilled in the art at the time of invention would recognize that the arrangement of the inner supply pipe that is extended and the end portion of the inner supply pipe would be determined by design factors such as the amount of space available in the body or the oil separation area required for a particular application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arrangement of Lee’s inner supply pipe in view of SHIMASAKI, since the arrangement of the inner supply pipe to be extended up to a location passing through a center of the body, and the end portion of the inner supply pipe to form the curved surface bent in a direction in which the center of the body to be positioned at a location passing through the center of the body, is determined by design factors such as the amount of space available in the body or the oil separation area required for a particular application. Further, rearrangement of parts only involves routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) (citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 70 (C.C.P.A. 1950).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee et al. (US 2006/0280622) in view of Kurokawa et al. (US 2017/0184331).
In regards to claim 3, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe is formed to be smaller than a pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe. Kurokawa teaches an oil separator (100; Fig. 11) wherein a pipe diameter (D1) of the second inner supply pipe (se-cond portion of inlet pipe 20) is formed to be smaller than a pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe (first portion of inlet pipe 20), (refer to par. 104). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil separator of Lee such that a pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe is formed to be smaller than a pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe as taught by Kurokawa in order to increase the oil separation efficiency (refer to par. 23 of Kurokawa).
In regards to claim 4, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe is formed in a size which is 0.5 times to 0.8 times of the pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe. Kurokawa does however teach an oil separator (100; Fig. 11) wherein a pipe diameter (D1) of the second inner supply pipe (second portion of inlet pipe 20) is formed to be smaller than a pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe (first portion of inlet pipe 20), (refer to par. 104). Therefore, the pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe and the pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is increasing the oil separation efficiency (par. 23). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. having the second inner supply pipe is formed to be smaller than a pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe and design factors involved, were disclosed in the prior art by Kurokawa, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee by setting the pipe diameter of the second inner supply pipe to be formed in a size which is 0.5 times to 0.8 times of the pipe diameter of the first inner supply pipe.
Claims 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee et al. (US 2006/0280622) in view of Zhou et al. (WO2022037409A1, see attached
translation).
In regards to claim 11, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein an inclination angle formed by an arc formed from one end portion to the other end portion of the second inner supply pipe is formed to be larger than a right angle.
Zhou teaches an oil separator (100; Fig. 1) wherein an inclination angle (β+α) formed by an arc formed from one end portion to the other end portion of the second inner supply pipe (pipe 40) is formed to be larger than a right angle (refer to par. 84).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil separator of Lee such that an inclination angle formed by an arc formed from one end portion to the other end portion of the second inner supply pipe is formed to be larger than a right angle as taught by Zhou in order to prevent deformation during to connecting and installing with the compressor (refer to par. 84 of Zhou).
In regards to claim 16, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lee teaches wherein the supply pipe (3) further includes an outer supply pipe (pipe portion outside of body 1) extended outwards to the outside of the body (as can be seen in Fig. 1), but fails to explicitly teach a first protrusion protruding in one direction, and a second protrusion protruding in a different direction from the first protrusion are disposed on an outer circumferential surface of the outer supply pipe.
Zhou teaches an oil separator (100; Fig. 1) wherein a first protrusion (left positioning protrusion 411) protruding in one direction (as can be seen in Fig. 11), and a second protrusion (right positioning protrusion 411) protruding in a different direction from the first protrusion are disposed on an outer circumferential surface of the outer supply pipe (pipe 40), (par. 80; also, as can be seen in Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil separator of Lee such that a first protrusion protruding in one direction, and a second protrusion protruding in a different direction from the first protrusion are disposed on an outer circumferential surface of the outer supply pipe as taught by Zhou in order to serve a positioning function so that the installer knows how deep to insert the pipe (refer to par. 79 of Zhou).
In regards to claim 17, Lee as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 16. Further, Zhou teaches wherein each of the first protrusion (left positioning protrusion 411) and the second protrusion (right positioning protrusion 411) is disposed to be in contact with the circumferential surface of the body (housing 10), (par. 79; also, as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 11).
In regards to claim 18, Lee as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 16. Further, Zhou teaches wherein the first protrusion (left positioning protrusion 411) and the second protrusion (right positioning protrusion 411) are disposed in opposite directions to each other (par. 80), and disposed to be spaced apart from each other (evenly distributed; par. 80; Fig. 11) in a longitudinal direction in which the outer supply pipe is extended (par. 80; Fig. 11).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee et al. (US 2006/0280622) in view of Cho et al. (KR20210092058A, see attached
translation).
In regards to claim 14, Lee meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the supply pipe further includes a connection supply pipe connecting the first inner supply pipe and the second inner supply pipe, and having a form in which a pipe diameter is reduced.
Cho teaches an oil separator wherein the supply pipe further includes a connection supply pipe (a tapered portion 324; Fig. 5) connecting the first inner supply pipe (discharge pipe 328) and the second inner supply pipe (tube portion 326), and having a form in which a pipe diameter is reduced (refer to par. 94).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil separator of Lee such that the supply pipe further includes a connection supply pipe connecting the first inner supply pipe and the second inner supply pipe, and having a form in which a pipe diameter is reduced as taught by Cho in order to prevent pressure from dropping, thereby increasing the flow rate of the fluid (refer to par. 93 of Cho).
In regards to claim 15, Lee as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 14. Further, Cho teaches wherein an extended length (length of connection supply pipe portion 324) of the connection supply pipe (324) is formed to be smaller than the extended length (length of second inner supply pipe 326) of the second inner supply pipe (refer to par. 94).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763