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 .
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zercher (US 2076332).
As per claim 1, Zercher discloses a multi-compressor system comprising:
- a plurality of compressors which are parallelly coupled, the plurality of com- pressors comprising at least three compressors (C1, C2, C3), each compressor including a compressor shell provided with a suction fitting (27, 28, 29) and a discharge fitting (5, 6, 7),
- a common suction line 16 and inlet connection lines each connecting the common suction line to the suction fitting of a respective compressor, the inlet connection lines having identical or similar dimensions (Fig. 1: dimensions shown as being the same),
- a common discharge line 8 and outlet connection lines each connecting the common discharge line to the discharge fitting of a respective compressor (Fig. 1),
- a plurality of individual oil balancing lines (18. 19) each fluidly connecting low pressure volumes of two respective compressors of the plurality compressors, at least one compressor (C2) of the plurality of compressors comprising two oil balancing line connections formed in the respective compressor shell and each connected to a respective individual oil balancing line, and two of the plurality of compressors (C1 and C3) comprising a single oil balancing line connection formed in the respective compressor shell and connected to a respective individual oil balancing line (Fig. 1), and
- a controller configured to control operation of the multi-compressor system (col. 1, lines 14-15 re. automatic control; etc.), the controller being configured to operate the multi-compressor system according to a plurality of predetermined authorized operating configurations (the system (page 1, col. 2, line 50 – page 2, col. 1, line 2; page 2, col. 1, line 57 – page 2, col. 2, line 3; etc.) control allows the three compressors to be switched on in series (C1, then C2, then C3) according to the load of the circuit, and to be switched off in reverse order (C3, the C2, then C1) and being configured to prevent operation of the multi-compressor system according to a plurality of predetermined forbidden operating configurations (since that order of operation is the only one allowed, all other operation arrangements are implicitly predetermined as being prevented, and thus “forbidden”).
As per claim 2, Zercher discloses wherein the plurality of predetermined authorized operating configurations includes part-load operation configurations where only one of the compressors having a single oil balancing line connection is stopped while all the other compressors of the plurality of compressors are running (page 1, col. 2, lines 50-51; etc.).
As per claim 5, since the system of Zercher is configured to operate only in the manner described (page 1, col. 2, line 50 – page 2, col. 1, line 2; page 2, col. 1, line 57 – page 2, col. 2, line 3; etc.), all other operational configurations are not permitted and thus considered “forbidden.” Accordingly, this includes part-load operation configurations where at least two of the plurality of compressors are running and one of said at least two compressors, which are running, is a compressor comprising a single oil balancing line connection, while the compressor, which has two oil balancing line connections and which is adjacent and coupled, via an oil balancing line, to said compressor comprising a single oil balancing line connection which is running, is stopped.
As per claim 6, again since the system of Zercher is configured to operate only in the manner described (page 1, col. 2, line 50 – page 2, col. 1, line 2; page 2, col. 1, line 57 – page 2, col. 2, line 3; etc.), all other operational configurations are not permitted and thus considered “forbidden.” Accordingly, this part-load operation configurations where one compressor of the at least one compressor comprising two oil balancing line connections is running, while all the others compressors of the plurality of compressors are stopped.
As per claim 7, Zercher disclose wherein the plurality of predetermined authorized operating configurations includes part-load operation configurations where only one of the plurality of compressors is running and said only one compressor which is running is a compressor comprising a single oil balancing line connection (page 1, col. 2, lines 50-51; etc.).
As per claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of individual oil balancing lines includes a tubular connecting part (18, 19) including a first end portion connected to an oil balancing line connection formed in the compressor shell of a respective compressor, a second end portion connected to an oil balancing line connection formed in the compressor shell of a respective compressor, and an intermediate portion located between the respective first and second end portions and fluidly connecting said respective first and second end portions (Fig. 1).
As per claim 12, Zercher discloses a refrigeration system comprising a refrigerant circulation circuit successively including a condenser 9, an expansion device 14, an evaporator 15and a multi-compressor system according to claim 1 connected in series (Fig. 1; etc.).
As per claim 13, Zercher discloses a method of controlling operation of a multi-compressor system, the method comprising:
- providing a multi-compressor system including:
- a plurality of compressors which are parallelly coupled, the plurality of com- pressors comprising at least three compressors (C1, C2, C3), each compressor including a compressor shell provided with a suction fitting (27, 28, 29) and a discharge fitting (5, 6, 7),
- a common suction line 16 and inlet connection lines each connecting the common suction line to the suction fitting of a respective compressor, the inlet connection lines having identical or similar dimensions (Fig. 1: dimensions shown as being the same),
- a common discharge line 8 and outlet connection lines each connecting the common discharge line to the discharge fitting of a respective compressor (Fig. 1),
- a plurality of individual oil balancing lines (18. 19) each fluidly connecting low pressure volumes of two respective compressors of the plurality compressors, at least one compressor (C2) of the plurality of compressors comprising two oil balancing line connections formed in the respective compressor shell and each connected to a respective individual oil balancing line, and two of the plurality of compressors (C1 and C3) comprising a single oil balancing line connection formed in the respective compressor shell and connected to a respective individual oil balancing line (Fig. 1), and
- preventing operation of the multi-compressor system according to a plurality of predetermined forbidden operating configurations (since order of operation described at page 1, col. 2, line 50 – page 2, col. 1, line 2; page 2, col. 1, line 57 – page 2, col. 2, line 3; etc. is the only one performed (and thus “allowed”), all other operation arrangements are implicitly predetermined as being prevented, and thus “forbidden”),
- selecting a predetermined authorized operation configuration among a plurality of predetermined authorized operation configurations (configurations described at page 1, col. 2, line 50 – page 2, col. 1, line 2; page 2, col. 1, line 57 – page 2, col. 2, line 3; etc.), and
- operating the multi-compressor system according to the selected predetermined authorized operation configuration (again, page 1, col. 2, line 50 – page 2, col. 1, line 2; page 2, col. 1, line 57 – page 2, col. 2, line 3; etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zercher (US 2076332).
As per claim 3, Zecher does not teach the plurality of predetermined authorized operating configurations includes part-load operation configurations where the two compressors having a single oil balancing line connection are stopped while all the other compressors of the plurality of com- pressors are running. However, such a configuration falls under the obvious to try rationale under KSR. In particular, given the three-compressor arrangement of Zercher, there are a finite number of compressor operation combinations available. It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to try the claimed configuration as a simple matter involving routine experimentation.
As per claim 4, Zercher discloses wherein the plurality of predetermined authorized operating configurations includes part-load operation configurations where at least two of the plurality of compressors are running (C1 and C2) and only one of the two compressors having a single oil balancing line connection is stopped (C3), but doesn’t teach while the compressor, which has two oil balancing line connections and which is adjacent and coupled, via an oil balancing line, to said compressor having a single oil balancing line connection which is stopped, is stopped. However, a four (or more) compressor arrangement is anticipated by Zercher at (page 2, col. 1, lines 13-16). Iterating the staged operation of Zercher (as described at page 1, col. 2, line 50 – page 2, col. 1, line 2; page 2, col. 1, line 57 – page 2, col. 2, line 3; etc.) to, for example, a four compressor arrangement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to provide an operation wherein the first two compressors are operating and the second two compressors are stopped for the purpose of providing an intermediate load operation, and thus reading on the configuration as claimed.
As pre claim 11, While Zercher does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of compressors comprises at least four compressors, the plurality of compressors comprising at least two compressors each comprising two oil balancing line connections and two compressors each comprising a single oil balancing line connection, it does teach adding additional compressors utilizing additional connections similar to lines 18 or 19 (page 2, col. 1, lines 13-16). It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to add a single additional compressor as the simplest iteration of such addition for the purpose of increasing the load capability of the system, and further that integrating the fourth compressor into the three compressor arrangement shown utilizing connections similar to lines 18 or 19 would automatically yield two compressors with two balancing lines (the two middle compressors) and two compressors with single balancing lines (the two outer compressors).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zercher (US 2076332) in view of Xu et al (US 9657975 B2).
As per claim 10, Zercher does not teach wherein each compressor of the plurality of compressors is a scroll compressor. Xu et al. teach a multi-compressor arrangement for oil balancing (Figs. 1-2; etc.) utilizing scroll compressors (col. 1, line 31; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly use scroll compressors within the system of Zercher as simply a generally well known and commonly used type of compressor, and further it would have been obvious to similarly utilize the oil balancing of Zercher within the context of scroll compressors since, as stated by Xu et al., such oil balancing is especially pertinent to scroll compressors wherein the low pressure chamber may be damaged due to a lack of lubrication oil (col. 1, lines 30-32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation “predetermined forbidden operating configurations” distinguishes over the applied prior art of Zercher. The Examiner disagrees. The term “forbidden” is not clearly defined in the disclosure. While the specification does give some examples of what “forbidden operating conditions” can include (paras. 0031-0032; etc.), such are only examples and are not limiting for patentability. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation “forbidden operating conditions” can be interpreted as those operating conditions that cannot occur, which is how Zercher has been interpreted above. Further, the term “predetermined” does not overcome this interpretation, since the design process of any such system implicitly incorporates designing against operating conditions that would have been considered undesirable. Accordingly, the limitation “predetermined forbidden operating configurations” is considered to be of such a broad nature as to be disclosed by Zercher.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b).
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 MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights