DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed 17 February 2026 have been entered. Claims 30-49 are pending.
The amendments overcome the drawing objections, claim objections, and partially overcome the 112 rejections. The amendments did not overcome the 112 rejections of claim 31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PG2, Applicant argues that Tripp does not disclose a non-self-actuated suction valve and a self-actuated discharge valve. Applicant provides arguments related to the “suction valve” but does not provide any arguments regarding “discharge valve;” therefore the discharge valve rejection will be maintained without further comment.
Examiner will address the “suction valve” arguments.
Examiner notes that both Tripp and applicant’s disclosed suction valves are poppet valves with a spring closing bias in the upward direction, that are both actuated by a rocking arm at the end of the poppet valve stem.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Tripp fig 10
PNG
media_image2.png
527
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Applicant’s fig 6
On page 2 and 3 applicant argues that Trips suction valve opening due to a pressure differential makes it clear that the valve is not a non-self-actuated suction valve.
Applicant is arguing unclaimed subject matter, when arguing that the suction valve should not open due to a pressure differential. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the valve does not open due to a pressure differential) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, if applicant wishes to distinguish their invention by specifying that the suction valve does not open to a pressure differential, then they need to claim that limitation.
Furthermore, applicant does not distinguish their disclosed suction valve from the suction valve of Tripp. The suction valves of Tripp and applicant’s suction valve are arranged in a similar way, and presumed to function similarly. Applicant is merely arguing that Tripp does not meet the claim limitation, but fails explain how their disclosed suction valve differs from Tripp’s suction valve. On the contrary, a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that applicant’s suction valve and Tripp’s suction valve likely have the similar features and would both open with sufficient differential pressure, Applicant’s the “non-self-actuated suction valve,” is disclosed in their fig 6. Figure 6 shows a spring bias closed poppet valve, with the same arrangement of valve and spring bias spring as the cited element in Tripp’s fig 10. Applicant does not disclose that their claimed valve will not open due to a pressure differential. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applicant’s disclosed valve is arranged analogously to Tripp’s figure 10, and that both valves should reasonably open if there were a pressure differential that overcame the valve spring closing bias force. Therefore, Applicant’s argument regarding the opening of Trigg’s valve due to differential pressure does not distinguish their disclosed invention from the prior art reference Tripp.
Pg 3, Applicant argues that Tripp’s suction valve is arranged to open the suction valve and prevent the compression of gas while the valve is open. Examiner agrees that Tripp is showing the regular function of a suction unloader valve. Applicant is arguing unclaimed subject matter. Applicant has not included any method steps or functions that would require a different operation than what is disclosed by Tripp. Furthermore, applicant has failed to differentiate their disclosed invention functions from Tripp. Applicant’s argument seems to be directed at the unloader function of Tripp. However, there is nothing to distinguish applicant’s invention from excluding unloading functions. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure references unloader functions in applicant’s background. Applicant disclosure cites GB2416196 (par 0027) as prior art, where the reference unloads a suction valve by holding it open during the compression cycle, in order to selectively prevent compression. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore reasonably conclude that a suction valve with an unloader function both anticipates and is analogous to applicant’s disclosed suction valve.
The requirement for an anticipation rejection is that the identical invention is shown in the complete detail that is contained in the claim (See MPEP 2131). Whether or not applicant intends to use the unloader function of their suction valve does not affect the anticipation rejection based on Tripp. In response to applicant's implied argument that they do not intend to use their suction valve as an unloader that prevents compression, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Therefore, the rejection under Tripp is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has not provided sufficient written description for:
In claim 31 the discharge valve as a self-actuated check valve, comprising “at least one self-actuated check valve comprises one or more of: a reed valve; a plate-valve; a self-actuated poppet valve.” Applicant has only shown the structural arrangement for a reed valve (fig 10, pg 36), plate valve (fig 11, pg 36), spring biased poppet (fig 12, pg 37). The terms “at least one” and “one or more of” comprises embodiments where the check valve comprises two types of valves. Applicant does not disclose how the “discharge and suction valve” are arranged so that a “self actuated check valve” comprises two of “a reed valve,” “a plate-valve,” and “a self-actuated poppet valve,” because their arrangement of one type of valve as a suction valve is mutually exclusive with the other types of valves. Therefore, applicant has not conveyed that at the time the application was filed that they had possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore Claim 31 rejection for lack of written description is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 30-34, 36, 38-39, 46, and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tripp (US 4,370,103).
Claim 30, Trip discloses a reciprocating compressor (fig 10, abstract) comprising:
a suction valve (114, c 12 ln 5-6); a discharge valve (90, c 12 ln 3); and a working chamber (fig 4, bore 36); wherein the suction valve is configured to provide fluid communication between a suction channel (fig 5, 67; c 12 ln 20-31) and the working chamber and the discharge valve is configured to provide fluid communication between the working chamber and a discharge channel (fig 4, 58/60, c 12 ln 60-c 13 ln 10); wherein the suction valve comprises at least one non-self-actuated valve (fig 10, mechanical actuator , c 17 ln 41-60; or fig 12, a solenoid actuator, c 18, ln 33, a spool actuator, c 18 ln 37) and the discharge valve comprises at least one self-actuated check valve (increase in pressure causes valve 90 to open against spring 84, c 12 ln 65-68).
Claim 31, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 30, wherein the self-actuated check valve comprises one or more of: … a plate-valve (90 is a plate, c 11 ln 48-49, second of four alternatives); ….
Claim 32, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 30, wherein the non-self-actuated valve is one or more of: a poppet valve (poppet inlet valve 114, c 12 ln 5-6, first of five alternatives); ….
Claim 33, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 30, wherein the non-self-actuated valve is one or more of: mechanically controlled (fig 10, c 17 ln 42; first of four alternatives);…; electrically controlled (fig 12, solenoid energized, c 18 ln 34, third of four alternatives);….
Claim 34, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 30, further comprising:
a compressor block (fig 8, pump body 142, c 15 ln 32-33) having at least one cylinder (144) with a piston (146) arranged to reciprocate therein; and at least one cylinder head (fig 10, 48 sits atop the cylinder body and meets the plain meaning of cylinder head); wherein the suction valve is arranged in the cylinder head (fig 10, 114 is in 48).
Claim 36, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 30, wherein the discharge valve is arranged concentrically with the suction valve (discharge valve and spool / inlet are arranged to close to aligned with the centerline of the bore and seal; c 10 ln 51-c 11 ln 52; the suction valve, as a component of the spool is incorporated into said centered discharge valve are arranged together to accomplish this, c 11 ln 33-60; c 20 ln 13-15).
Claim 38, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 34, wherein the suction valve and/or discharge valve are arranged such that their central axis is shared with the central axis of the at least one cylinder (fig 4-7 and fig 10 all show the inlet valve 114 in a center of the discharge valve 90 and on the center of the cylinder axis; the discharge valve and spool are arranged on the centerline and provided with seals to account for any small misalignment, c 11 ln 30-52).
Claim 39, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 34, wherein the piston is provided with at least one protrusion (fig 7, shows end wall 37 of piston 38 extending into the cylinder head, past the plane 46 at the bottom of the cylinder head; the single end of the piston meets the plain meaning of “at least one protrusion”, c 14 ln 39-50) and the cylinder head is provided with at least one cylinder head recess (the recess formed on the upper side of planar surface 46 at the bottom surface of the cylinder head, c 14 ln 39-45), wherein the at least one protrusion and the at least one cylinder head recess are registered such that the protrusion will displace at least a portion of the volume of the cylinder head recess in use (fig 7 depicts the entirety of the piston protruding into the recess, c 14 ln 39-50; this shape in the cylinder head which accepts the shape of the piston meets the plain meaning of registry; further the term protrusion does not exclude an interpretation that includes the entirety of the piston).
Claim 46, Tripp discloses a heat pump comprising the reciprocating compressor according to claim 30 (heat pump compressor, c 19 ln 51).
Claim 48, Trip discloses use of a reciprocating compressor according to claim 30 in a heat pump (heat pump compressor, c 19 ln 51).
Claim 49, Trip discloses a method of operating a reciprocating compressor according to claim 30, comprising the steps of:
a. sucking working fluid into the working chamber via the at least one non-self- actuated valve (c 12 ln 20-31); and
b. discharging working fluid from the working chamber via the at least one self- actuated check valve (c 12 ln 60-c 13 ln 10).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 35, 37 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripp in view of Min (WO 2006/115348).
Claim 35, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 30. Tripp does not disclose wherein the at least one discharge valve is a plurality of self-actuated check valves.
Min teaches a reciprocating piston compressor with a central poppet type intake valve (fig 3, 120) and at least one discharge valve is a plurality of self-actuated check valves (fig 4, discharge valve 220 with multiple exhaust ports 211, with a plurality of exhaust paths 261, par 0046, 0051, 0052).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of cylinder head and exhaust passages and discharge valve of Tripp to the multiple port and discharge valve configuration of Min in order to more evenly distribute heat across the cylinder head (Min, par 0052) and thereby prevent the concentration of heat and thermal fatigue of the cylinder head which will thereby improve cylinder head durability (Min, par 0052). Furthermore, the arrangement of a central suction valve and an outer discharge valve is common to both Min and Tripp. It is reasonable that the combination of Tripp in view of Min will produce a predictable result because the outer discharge valve of both Min and Tripp function in the same way in the combination as they do in the references separately.
Claim 37, Tripp in view of Min teaches the reciprocating compressor according to claim 35, wherein the plurality of self- actuated check valves are each concentric with the suction valve (Min fig 3, discharge ports 211 and concentric with the intake port 111; this is the feature in the combination of Tripp in view of Min).
Claim 45, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 30.
Tripp is silent on the working chamber is a first working chamber and the suction channel is a first suction channel, further comprises a second working chamber and a second suction channel; the first and second suction channels join to form a combined suction channel comprising an inlet for the compressor receiving working fluid therethrough.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the first working chamber, and suction channels into a second working chamber and suction channel as a duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04). A duplication of parts is obvious when the duplication has no new or unexpected result (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In this case, the duplication of working chambers and suction chambers provides the expected result of a compressor of greater capacity; the duplicated parts are used in the same way in the duplicated parts as they are in the single part; there showing that the duplication is obvious. As a result of the duplication, Tripp makes obvious a first working chamber, a first suction channel, a second working chamber and a second suction channel.
The obvious duplication of parts does not explicitly explain the combined suction channel comprising an inlet.
Min teaches a two piston compressor (fig 1, 53a and 53b, par 4) which have a common intake (2) and a common discharge (3).
It would have been obvious to configured the duplicated suction channels of Tripp to combine into a common intake as taught by Min for the predictable result of parallel arranged piston cylinders in a pump, thereby increasing the capacity of the pump.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripp in view of Berlyn (US 3704079).
Claim 40, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 34. Tripp does not disclose wherein the piston is provided with at least one piston recess which is shaped and configured to receive a non-self-actuated valve in use.
Berlyn teaches a reciprocating piston compressor with a central inlet valve (11) and outer radius discharge valves (13) where the crown of the piston (5) includes a recess (16) beneath the inlet valve in order to obtain a volumetric compression ratio greater than 500 to 1 with pressure ratios exceeding 40 to 1.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piston crown of Tripp by adding the recess (16) beneath the inlet valve as taught by Beryln in order to obtain a higher volumetric compression ratio and thereby increase compressor efficiency at high speed (Beryln, c 2 ln 44-60). Furthermore, the combination will produce a predictable result because the central suction valve (114) of Tripp is centered above a piston crown; while the central recess (16) in the piston crown of Beryln accommodates a central suction valve; therefore both elements function the same way in the combination as they do in the references separately.
As a result, the combination makes obvious the “wherein the piston is provided with at least one piston recess (Beryln, recess 16) which is shaped and configured to receive a non-self-actuated valve in use (Tripp’s central suction valve 114 is centrally located above Beryln’s central recess 16 in the piston crown; where Beryln’s central recess 16 functions to clear the lower end of the central valve guide member at top dead center, c 1 ln 55-60).”
Claims 41 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripp in view of Moreira (US 2012/0063937).
Claim 41, Tripp discloses the reciprocating compressor according to claim 34.
Tripp is silent wherein the suction channel comprises:
a first portion formed in the compressor block; and a second portion formed in the at least one cylinder head; wherein the first and second portions are configured to mate at a connection to form a fluid passage between the first portion and the second portion for delivering working fluid to the working chamber in use.
Moreira teaches a reciprocating compressor (fig 1, abstract) for use in a heat pump (refrigerant compressor, par 0012), the suction channel comprises: a first portion (fig 3, 30-33, par 0032, 0036) formed in the compressor block (shell 1 / block 2, par 0030); and a second portion (41, 46, par 0044-0045) formed in the at least one cylinder head (70, par 0054, 0059-0062); wherein the first and second portions are configured to mate at a connection (46, par 0045) to form a fluid passage between the first portion and the second portion for delivering working fluid to the working chamber in use (suction path, par 0031-0034).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing and cylinder head of Tripp by routing the suction passage through the housing (12) then into the cylinder head suction path as taught by Moreira in order to increase the operation pressure of the compressor (par 0003) allowing better thermal insulation and noise attenuation via incorporating a thermal insulating means and insert which connects to suction through the cylinder block (par 0034-0042).
Claim 44, Tripp in view of Moreira teaches the reciprocating compressor according to claim 41, wherein the first portion comprises a buffer reservoir (Moreira, fig 3, chambers 11a assists in noise attenuation by providing a buffer/insulating means, par 0041-0045; the plain meaning of buffer is insulating).
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripp in view of Moreira in view of Lee (CN 104728084).
Claim 42, Tripp in view of Moreira teaches the reciprocating compressor according to claim 41, wherein the first portion of the suction channel comprises a fluid entry path (Moreira, fig 3, 30-33) adjacent the connection when the first and second portions are mated in use.
Tripp in view of Moreira does not explicitly disclose wherein the fluid entry path is configured to direct fluid at an angle of between 20 degrees and 80 degrees relative to a normal on a cylinder center axis.
Lee teaches an analogous compressor muffler chamber with noise reducing channels having various “U” or “C” shapes with curved groove or paths where the degree of curve is a result effective variable that determines the reduction in rate of working fluid and thereby the reduction in noise and/or vibration of the compressor (par 0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the degree of arc of noise reduction channels (40-41) of Moreira as taught by Lee as a result effective variable (MPEP 2145.05), in order to improve control of the change the rate of working fluid and improve the control the noise reduction of the Moreira’s muffler. The rule is that in order for a parameter to be considered an obvious result-effective variable, the parameter must be recognized as achieving a recognized result ( In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)). In this case, Lee teaches that the arc of channels in the muffler of a compressor result in changes of working fluid speed and thereby changes in noise.
Therefore, Tripp in view of Moreira in view of Lee makes obvious the limitation wherein the fluid entry path is configured to direct fluid at an angle of between 20 degrees and 80 degrees (Moreira, fig 3, conduits 40-41 and 46 are channels that contribute to the noise attenuation of the gas, par 0044; Lee teaches that the degree of conduit curves in a muffler are result effective variables for fluid speed and thereby noise, par 0050) relative to a normal on a cylinder center axis (Moreira, piston 9; normal is the face of cylinder bloc 2, facing to the right in fig 3).
Claim 43, Tripp in view of Moreira in view of Lee teaches the reciprocating compressor according to claim 42, wherein the angle is around 45 degrees (Moreira in view of Lee, the Moreira angles of muffler conduits 40-41 are result effective variables for desired speed change of the working fluid and noise).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripp in view of Kwan (US 2009/0155114).
Claim 47, Tripp discloses the heat pump according to claim 46. Tripp is silent on wherein the heat pump is a high-temperature heat pump capable in use of supplying output temperatures above 55 degrees Celsius or above 80 degrees Celsius or above 90 degrees Celsius or above 100 degrees Celsius or above 110 degrees Celsius or above 120 degrees Celsius or above 130 degrees Celsius or above 140 degrees Celsius or above 150 degrees Celsius or above 160 degrees Celsius or above 170 degrees Celsius or above 180 degrees Celsius or above 190 degrees Celsius or above 200 degrees Celsius or above 210 degrees Celsius or above 220 degrees Celsius or above 230 degrees Celsius or above 240 degrees Celsius or above 250 degrees Celsius.
Kwan teaches a high pressure reciprocating compressor for a refrigerant in a refrigerant system with typical discharge temperatures (132.6 degrees Celsius, par 0038).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the rat prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the compressor of Tripp using a refrigerant as taught by Kwan thereby selecting a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
As a result of the combination, it would be obvious to operate the refrigerant compressor at temperatures up to 130 degrees Celsius thereby using a range of temperatures where a refrigerant system is known to be effective.
The combination meets the limitation because 130 degrees Celsius is above at least the claimed 55 degree Celsius (all of applicant’s upper claimed limits are claimed in the alternative, therefore an output above 55 degrees Celsius is all that is needed to anticipate the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746