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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun Lin et al. (WO 2021/022192 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sun Lin,” in view of Shapiro (2,528,557).
Regarding Claim 1: Sun Lin teaches a refrigerant compressor (14), comprising: a first cooling line (30) configured to cool power electronics (paragraph [0031]); a second cooling line (80) configured to cool a motor (26) of the compressor (14); a first valve (29) operable to selectively restrict flow through the first cooling line (paragraph [0031]), and a second valve (79) operable to selectively restrict flow through the second cooling line (80, paragraph [0031]).
Sun Lin fails to teach wherein the first valve is mounted to a baseplate; and wherein the second valve is mounted to the baseplate.
Shapiro teaches a first valve (14) is mounted to a baseplate (11 on pad 12); and a second valve (23) is mounted to the baseplate (11 on pad 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first valve is mounted to a baseplate; and wherein the second valve is mounted to the baseplate to the structure of Sun Lin as taught by Shapiro in order to advantageously provide a simplified mount for service and refrigeration parts (see Shapiro, Column 2, lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 2: Sun Lin teaches wherein fluid flowing into the first (29) and second valves (79) is from a common source (12, see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3: Sun Lin modified supra further teaches wherein: the baseplate (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12 of Shapiro) includes an inlet orifice (opening into 13 of Shapiro) and a first conduit (25 of Shapiro), and the first conduit leads to a junction (14 of Shapiro) configured to direct some flow from the first conduit (25 of Shapiro) toward the first valve (29 of Sun Lin) and other flow to the second valve (79 of Sun Lin via by pass, Column 3, lines 14-45 of Shapiro).
Regarding Claim 4: Sun Lin modified supra teaches wherein: a first inlet conduit (see Figure 2 of Shapiro) connects the first valve (29 of Sun Lin) and the junction (14 of Shapiro), and a second inlet conduit (15 of Shapiro) connects the second valve (79 of Sun Lin) and the junction (14 of Shapiro).
Regarding Claim 5: Sun Lin modified supra teaches wherein: the baseplate (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12 of Shapiro) includes a first outlet orifice (exits from 11 of Shapiro), a first outlet conduit (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro) connects the first valve (29 of Sun Lin) and the first outlet orifice (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro), the baseplate (11 of Shapiro) includes a second outlet orifice (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro), and a second outlet conduit (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro) connects the second valve (79 of Sun Lin) and the second outlet orifice (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro).
Regarding Claim 7: Sun Lin modified supra teaches wherein the baseplate (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12 of Shapiro) is brass (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12, Column 2, lines 46-50 of Shapiro).
Regarding Claim 11: Sun Lin teaches a refrigerant system (10), comprising: a main refrigerant loop (12) in communication with a condenser (16), an evaporator (18), and a compressor (14), wherein the compressor includes: a first cooling line (30) configured to cool power electronics (paragraph [0031]); a second cooling line (80) configured to cool a motor (26) of the compressor (14); a first valve (29) operable to selectively restrict flow through the first cooling line (paragraph [0031]), a second valve (79) operable to selectively restrict flow through the second cooling line (80, paragraph [0031]).
Sun Lin fails to teach wherein the first valve is mounted to a baseplate; and wherein the second valve is mounted to the baseplate.
Shapiro teaches a first valve (14) is mounted to a baseplate (11 on pad 12); and a second valve (23) is mounted to the baseplate (11 on pad 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first valve is mounted to a baseplate; and wherein the second valve is mounted to the baseplate to the structure of Sun Lin as taught by Shapiro in order to advantageously provide a simplified mount for service and refrigeration parts (see Shapiro, Column 2, lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 12: Sun Lin teaches wherein fluid flowing into the first (29) and second valves (79) is from a common source (12, see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 13: Sun Lin modified supra further teaches wherein: the baseplate (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12 of Shapiro) includes an inlet orifice (opening into 13 of Shapiro) and a first conduit (25 of Shapiro) connected to the inlet orifice (see Figure 2 of Shapiro), and the first conduit (see Figure 2 of Shapiro) leads to a junction (14 of Shapiro) configured to direct some flow from the first conduit (see Figure 2 of Shapiro) toward the first valve (29 of Sun Lin) and other flow to the second valve (79 of Sun Lin via by pass, Column 3, lines 14-45 of Shapiro).
Regarding Claim 14: Sun Lin modified supra teaches wherein: a first inlet conduit (see Figure 2 of Shapiro) connects the first valve (29 of Sun Lin) and the junction (14 of Shapiro), and a second inlet conduit (15 of Shapiro) connects the second valve (79 of Sun Lin) and the junction (14 of Shapiro).
Regarding Claim 15: Sun Lin modified supra teaches wherein: the baseplate (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12 of Shapiro) includes a first outlet orifice (exits from 11 of Shapiro), a first outlet conduit (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro) connects the first valve (29 of Sun Lin) and the first outlet orifice (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro), the baseplate (11 of Shapiro) includes a second outlet orifice (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro), and a second outlet conduit (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro) connects the second valve (79 of Sun Lin) and the second outlet orifice (see exits from 11 in Figures 1-2 of Shapiro).
Regarding Claim 17: Sun Lin modified supra teaches wherein the baseplate (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12 of Shapiro) is brass (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12, Column 2, lines 46-50 of Shapiro).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun Lin et al. (WO 2021/022192 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sun Lin,” in view of Shapiro (2,528,557), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hornsleth et al. (6,041,609), hereafter referred to as “Hornsleth.”
Regarding Claim 8: Sun Lin modified supra fails to teach wherein the baseplate is mounted within a power electronics housing of the refrigerant compressor.
Hornsleth a baseplate (3) is mounted within a power electronics housing (6) of a refrigerant compressor (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the baseplate is mounted within a power electronics housing of the refrigerant compressor to the structure of Sun Lin modified supra as taught by Hornsleth in order to advantageously provide cooling to the electronic housing by external mounting (see Hornsleth, Column 2, lines 5-18).
Regarding Claim 9: Sun Lin modified supra teaches wherein the baseplate (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12 of Shapiro) includes openings configured to receive fasteners (Column 3, lines 58-64 of Shapiro).
Regarding Claim 18: Sun Lin modified supra fails to teach wherein the baseplate is mounted within a power electronics housing of the refrigerant compressor.
Hornsleth a baseplate (3) is mounted within a power electronics housing (6) of a refrigerant compressor (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the baseplate is mounted within a power electronics housing of the refrigerant compressor to the structure of Sun Lin modified supra as taught by Hornsleth in order to advantageously provide cooling to the electronic housing by external mounting (see Hornsleth, Column 2, lines 5-18).
Regarding Claim 19: Sun Lin modified supra teaches wherein the baseplate (mono block manifold 11 mounted on 12 of Shapiro) includes openings configured to receive fasteners (Column 3, lines 58-64 of Shapiro).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun Lin et al. (WO 2021/022192 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sun Lin,” in view of Shapiro (2,528,557), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Espelien et al. (US 2019/0063461 A1), hereafter referred to as “Espelien.”
Regarding Claims 10 and 20: Sun Lin modified supra fails to teach wherein the first and second valves are electronic expansion valves.
Espelien teaches valves are electronic expansion valves (paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first and second valves are electronic expansion valves to the structure of Sun Lin modified supra as taught by Espelien in order to advantageously provide automated controlled opening of the valves (see Espelien, paragraph [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and amended without any patentably significant broadening of the claims and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kapich (3,495,418).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights