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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024 and 04/16/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes phrases which can be implied, such as “Provided is…” The phrase does not aid in understanding the invention and said phrasing is expressly discouraged in order to clearly and concisely describe the invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Apparent typographical error, “a plurality if oil separator…”, wherein the plural form “separators” may instead be used. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 10-11 and 15 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.
Claim 8 recites “is opened” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “is opened”. Claim 8 recites an apparatus claim (compression system) and the limitation of "the first shutoff valve is opened" is a method step of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since it is unclear if infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows a user to open a valve, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually manually opens the valve, see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). As such, claim 8 is indefinite as failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the invention. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, "the first shutoff valve is capable of opening”.
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “...a second shutoff valve…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to how a second shutoff valve may exist without the existence of a first shutoff valve. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “...a third shutoff valve…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to how a third shutoff valve may exist without the existence of a first or second shutoff valve. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al. (JP 2018004220 A, hereinafter “Miyamoto”).
Regarding Claim 1, Miyamoto teaches a compression system [Figs. 1-3] comprising:
a compressor [2] configured to compress and discharge a refrigerant and comprising a refrigerant inflow port [4] through which the refrigerant flows in [¶ 0021] and an oil recovery port [received from oil return pipe 16] for recovering oil [¶ 0022];
a plurality of oil separator [8, 9] configured to separate the oil which is included in the refrigerant discharged from the compressor [¶ 0021, 0025] and comprising a first oil separator [8] into which the refrigerant discharged from the compressor flows [Fig. 1; ¶ 0021-0022, 0026; refrigerant/oil flow from port 5 of the compressor through line 7 into separator 8] and a second oil separator [9] connected to the first oil separator in series along a travelling path of the refrigerant [Fig. 1; ¶ 0021-0022; apparent from inspection];
a first recovery pipe [16] configured to recover the oil from the first oil separator to the oil recovery port [¶ 0022; Fig. 1; oil flows to the compressor port via line 16 from oil separator 8]; and
a second recovery pipe [17] configured to recover the oil from the second oil separator to the refrigerant inflow port [¶ 0022; Fig. 1; oil flows to the line connecting suction port 4 from oil separator 9].
Regarding Claim 2, Miyamoto teaches the compression system of claim 1 above and Miyamoto teaches wherein the second recovery pipe [17] is directly connected to the refrigerant inflow port or connected to a refrigerant pipe connected to the refrigerant inflow port [Fig. 1; ¶ 0028; separated oil from line 17 is mixed with refrigerant in the conduit introducing refrigerant to suction port 4 of the compressor; apparent from inspection].
Regarding Claim 3, Miyamoto teaches the compression system of claim 1 above and Miyamoto further teaches comprising:
a first flow amount control valve [20] provided on the first recovery pipe and configured to control a recovery amount of the oil [¶ 0022; Fig. 1; valve 20 may control the supply of oil]; and
a second flow amount control valve provided on the second recovery pipe and configured to control the recovery amount of the oil [¶ 0037; Fig. 3; Miyamoto discloses that a similar solenoid valve 20 may also be provided in the oil return line 17].
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (CN 210050041 U, hereinafter “Jin”).
Regarding Claim 4, Miyamoto teaches the compression system of claim 1 above and while Miyamoto discloses the solenoid valve [20] and a capillary [19] on the first recovery pipe, capable of closing and preventing a backflow of oil [¶ 0022; Fig. 1], Miyamoto does not explicitly further teach comprising an oil check valve provided on the first recovery pipe and configured to prevent a backflow of the oil.
However, Jin teaches an oil return device of a compressor [Fig. 1] comprising an oil tank [1] and an oil separator [2] connected via an oil return pipe [3], wherein the oil return pipe further comprises a check valve [4], such that oil may not flow back into the oil separator from the oil return pipe, thereby enabling the oil to only flow to the fuel tank through one direction via the check valve [¶ 0004, 0013]. Jin further discloses that providing a check valve enables a system to implement further flow devices [such as 5] to encourage oil return without backflow into the separator [¶ 0014]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the check valve as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the check valve 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 a means to prevent oil backflow to the separator, thereby enabling the system to implement further flow devices to encourage oil return, thereby improving the system [¶ 0014].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Miyamoto to have an oil check valve provided on the first recovery pipe and configured to prevent a backflow of the oil, in view of the teachings of Jin where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to prevent oil backflow to the separator, thereby enabling the system to implement further flow devices to encourage oil return, thereby improving the system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (KR 20080010058 A, hereinafter “Yoon”).
Regarding Claim 5, Miyamoto teaches the compression system of claim 1 above but Miyamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of oil separators further comprises a third oil separator connected to the second oil separator in series along the travelling path of the refrigerant, and the compression system further comprises a first connection pipe in which the oil is to flow between the second oil separator and the third oil separator.
However, Yoon discloses a multi oil separating apparatus [Figs. 7-8] comprising a compressor [110], first oil separation device [150], a second oil separation device [160] and a third oil separation device [170] such that the plurality of oil separators are disposed in series, flowing in order from 150 to 151 to 160a to 160 to 160b to 170 [¶ 0061-0067]. Pipes 160c and 170c (first connection pipe) meet at a junction with pipe 170a between the oil separators 160 and 170 such that oil flows [¶ 0056, 0069]. Yoon discloses that providing a plurality of secondary oil separators provides a failsafe guard against an oil separator malfunctioning, therefore enabling the system to continue separating oil and reduce possible oil shortages, thus improving the system [¶ 0068-0071].One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the third oil separator as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the oil separator 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 a means for a failsafe guard against an oil separator malfunctioning, therefore enabling the system to continue separating oil and reduce possible oil shortages, thus improving the system [¶ 0068-0071].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Miyamoto to have wherein the plurality of oil separators further comprises a third oil separator connected to the second oil separator in series along the travelling path of the refrigerant, and the compression system further comprises a first connection pipe in which the oil is to flow between the second oil separator and the third oil separator, in view of the teachings of Yoon, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means for a failsafe guard against an oil separator malfunctioning, therefore enabling the system to continue separating oil and reduce possible oil shortages, thus improving the system.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto and Yoon as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Moriwaki (US 20050279111 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Miyamoto, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 5 above but Miyamoto does not explicitly further teach comprising a first shutoff valve provided on the first connection pipe and configured to shut off a flow of the oil.
However, Moriwaki teaches an air conditioner and method for performing oil equalization operation in an air conditioner [Figs. 3 and 11-16] comprising a plurality of oil reservoirs [at least 2a, 3a, 2b, 3b] [¶ 0057]. While 2a-3b are compressors, they each comprise of an oil reservoir for receiving oil and for providing equalizing oil to the plurality of surrounding reservoirs [¶ 0005]. The reservoirs are linked with connection pipes [at least 12a/13a and 12b/13b] wherein the pipes comprise opening/closing valves (shutoff valve) [16a, 16b] such that oil may be controlled in a manner to equalize the oil across the reservoirs as required [¶ 0063-0066]. Moriwaki further teaches that oil equalizing tubes and valves prevent the occurrence of a phenomenon that oil is not supplied to one of the compressors by ensuring the flow of oil [¶ 0005]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the first shutoff valve as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the first shutoff valve 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. oil equalizing tubes and valves provide a means to prevent the occurrence of a phenomenon that oil is not supplied to one of the compressors, thus improving the system [¶ 0005].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Miyamoto to have a first shutoff valve provided on the first connection pipe and configured to shut off a flow of the oil, in view of the teachings of Moriwaki, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. oil equalizing tubes and valves provide a means to prevent the occurrence of a phenomenon that oil is not supplied to one of the compressors, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 7, Miyamoto teaches the compression system of claim 6 above and Moriwaki teaches wherein the second recovery pipe [19] is connected to the first connection pipe [For clarity: Moriwaki’s reservoirs 2a, 3a and connection pipe 12a, 13a are analogous to Yoon’s reservoir 170, 160 and connection pipe 170c, 160c respectively; Moriwaki’s pipe 19 is analogous to Yoon’s pipe 170a and Miyamoto’s pipe 17] [Fig. 3; apparent from inspection pipe 19 meets at 12a/13a], and the first shutoff valve [16a] is disposed between the second recovery pipe and the third oil separator [Fig. 3; valve 16a may be disposed on line 12a/13a, upstream of the line connection to 19].
Regarding Claim 8, Miyamoto teaches the compression system of claim 6 above and Moriwaki teaches wherein the first shutoff valve [16a] is opened when an oil surface of the oil in the third oil separator is higher than an oil surface of the oil in the second oil separator [¶ 0027; oil equalization is performed when an oil level detected in one of the reservoirs is lower than a predetermined level].
Claims 9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zha et al. (US 20210270502 A1, hereinafter “Zha”).
Regarding Claim 9, Miyamoto teaches the compression system of claim 1 above, but Miyamoto does not explicitly further teach comprising: an oil reservoir provided by branching from one point on a path of the refrigerant discharged from the compressor toward the first oil separator and configured to store the oil with which the compressor is to be replenished; and a second connection pipe in which the oil is to flow between the first oil separator and the oil reservoir.
However, Zha teaches a cooling system with oil return to oil reservoir [Figs. 2c] comprising at least a compressor [212], an oil separator [214]] downstream thereof, an oil reservoir [240], and a vessel [at least 222A], also further comprising a pipe (second connection pipe) disposed between the oil separator and the oil reservoir [¶ 0030, 0038; Fig. 2C; apparent from inspection]. It is further apparent from inspection that a branch point exists between compressor 212 and oil separator 214, such that fluid may flow to the vessel 222A and further continue to being stored in the oil reservoir 240 via at least pipes containing 238A [Alternatively, see Fig. 4C for the branching point flowing from the vessel to an accumulator [208B]]. Therefore, the combination of the vessel 222A and the oil reservoir 240 may be considered equivalent to the claimed oil reservoir, as it fulfills the same function or providing a branch after the compressor and before the oil separator to the reservoir, to provide fluid to the oil reservoir to be used to supply the compressor(s) with oil [¶ 0045]. Zha further teaches that this configuration provides a means for the system to operate in a plurality of modes (normal, oil drain, and oil return operations), thereby improving the control capabilities of the system [¶ 0045-0047]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined oil reservoir as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the reservoir 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. to provide a means for the system to operate in a plurality of modes (normal, oil drain, and oil return operations), thereby improving the control capabilities of the system [¶ 0045-0047].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Miyamoto to have an oil reservoir provided by branching from one point on a path of the refrigerant discharged from the compressor toward the first oil separator and configured to store the oil with which the compressor is to be replenished; and a second connection pipe in which the oil is to flow between the first oil separator and the oil reservoir, in view of the teachings of Zha where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to provide a means for the system to operate in a plurality of modes (normal, oil drain, and oil return operations), thereby improving the control capabilities of the system.
Regarding Claim 12, Miyamoto, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 9 and Zha further teaches comprising a refrigerant check valve [at least 224A, 224B] configured to prevent a backflow of the refrigerant and provided to a refrigerant pipe configured to supply the refrigerant [¶ 0043; Fig. 2C; check valves allow refrigerant to flow in a single direction and are configured to provide refrigerant to the accumulator 208].
Regarding claim 13, Miyamoto teaches the compression system of claim 1 above but Miyamoto does not explicitly further teach comprising: an oil reservoir provided by branching from one point on a path of the refrigerant discharged from the compressor toward the first oil separator and configured to store the oil with which the compressor is to be replenished; and a replenishment pipe configured to replenish an oil chamber with the oil from the oil reservoir.
However, Zha teaches a cooling system with oil return to oil reservoir [Figs. 2c] comprising at least a compressor [212], an oil separator [214]] downstream thereof, an oil reservoir [240], and a vessel [at least 222A], also further comprising a pipe (replenishment pipe) disposed below the oil reservoir to provide oil to a compressor chamber [¶ 0030, 0038; Fig. 2C; apparent from inspection]. It is further apparent from inspection that a branch point exists between compressor 212 and oil separator 214, such that fluid may flow to the vessel 222A and further continue to being stored in the oil reservoir 240 via at least pipes containing 238A [Alternatively, see Fig. 4C for the branching point flowing from the vessel to an accumulator [208B]]. Therefore, the combination of the vessel 222A and the oil reservoir 240 may be considered equivalent to the claimed oil reservoir, as it fulfills the same function or providing a branch after the compressor and before the oil separator to the reservoir, to provide fluid to the oil reservoir to be used to supply the compressor(s) with oil [¶ 0045]. Zha further teaches that this configuration provides a means for the system to operate in a plurality of modes (normal, oil drain, and oil return operations), thereby improving the control capabilities of the system [¶ 0045-0047]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined oil reservoir as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the reservoir 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. to provide a means for the system to operate in a plurality of modes (normal, oil drain, and oil return operations), thereby improving the control capabilities of the system [¶ 0045-0047].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Miyamoto to have an oil reservoir provided by branching from one point on a path of the refrigerant discharged from the compressor toward the first oil separator and configured to store the oil with which the compressor is to be replenished; and a replenishment pipe configured to replenish an oil chamber with the oil from the oil reservoir, in view of the teachings of Zha where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to provide a means for the system to operate in a plurality of modes (normal, oil drain, and oil return operations), thereby improving the control capabilities of the system.
Regarding Claim 14, Miyamoto, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 13 above and Zhan teaches wherein the compressor [212] further comprises an oil replenishment port [Fig. 2C; apparent from inspection] configured to replenish the oil chamber with the oil, and the replenishment pipe is connected to the oil replenishment port [¶ 0030; Fig. 2C; oil flows from oil reservoir 240 to compressor 212 via the replenishing pipe below the oil reservoir, connected to the compressor].
Regarding Claim 15, Miyamoto, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 13 above and Miyamoto further teaches comprising a third shutoff valve provided on the replenishment pipe and configured to shut off a flow of the oil [¶ 0037; Miyamoto already discloses that the duplication of solenoid valve 20 to another oil line may provide further control to the system. Therefore, when in combination with Zha having an additional oil reservoir and oil supply line (replenishment pipe), also configured to supply oil to the compressor, it may be considered an obvious design choice regarding a duplication of parts [MPEP 2144.04], as providing another shutoff valve to another oil line (similar to providing valve 20’ to line 17 in Miyamoto) would likely only provide the already known benefit of improving control capabilities over the system. Furthermore, a review of the specification does not provide any further benefits of the third shutoff valve not already known. Also see cited Moriwaki (US 20050279111 A1) as evidence regarding the known use of providing oil lines with control valves].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto and Zha as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Moriwaki.
Regarding Claim 10, Miyamoto, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 9 above but Zha does not further teach comprising a second shutoff valve provided on the second connection pipe and configured to shut off a flow of the oil.
However, Moriwaki teaches an air conditioner and method for performing oil equalization operation in an air conditioner [Figs. 3 and 11-16] comprising a plurality of oil reservoirs [at least 2a, 3a, 2b, 3b] [¶ 0057]. While 2a-3b are compressors, they each comprise of an oil reservoir for receiving oil and for providing equalizing oil to the plurality of surrounding reservoirs [¶ 0005]. The reservoirs are linked with connection pipes [at least 12a/13a and 12b/13b] wherein the pipes comprise opening/closing valves (shutoff valve) [16a, 16b] such that oil may be controlled in a manner to equalize the oil across the reservoirs as required [¶ 0063-0066]. Moriwaki further teaches that oil equalizing tubes and valves prevent the occurrence of a phenomenon that oil is not supplied to one of the compressors by ensuring the flow of oil [¶ 0005]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the shutoff valve as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the shutoff valve 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. oil equalizing tubes and valves provide a means to prevent the occurrence of a phenomenon that oil is not supplied to one of the compressors, thus improving the system [¶ 0005].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Miyamoto to have a second shutoff valve provided on the second connection pipe and configured to shut off a flow of the oil, in view of the teachings of Moriwaki, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. oil equalizing tubes and valves provide a means to prevent the occurrence of a phenomenon that oil is not supplied to one of the compressors, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 11, Miyamoto, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 10 above and Moriwaki teaches wherein the first recovery pipe [16] is connected to the second connection pipe [For clarity: Moriwaki’s reservoirs 2a, 3a and connection pipe 12a, 13a may analogous to Zha’s oil separator/oil reservoir 214, 242 and the connection line between them, respectively; Moriwaki’s pipe 19 may be analogous to Zha’s pipe below the oil reservoir connected to the compressor 212, and Miyamoto’s pipe 16], and the second shutoff valve is disposed between the second connection pipe and the oil reservoir [Fig. 3; valve 16a may be disposed on line 12a/13a, upstream of the line connection to 19].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(JP H03286198 A) [Fig. 2] discloses a compressor oil system comprising a plurality of oil reservoirs, connecting lines between said reservoirs and compressors, as well as a plurality of control valves for each line, configured to control the oil level in the reservoirs with oil level sensing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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-Daryl 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights