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 Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, line 1 recites, “the plates” and should likely read “the annular plates” or “the plurality of annular plates” to retain consistency between the claims (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, line 2 recites, “two or more of the plates” and should likely read “two or more of the annular plates” or “two or more of the plurality of annular plates” to retain consistency between the claims (see claim 4).
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the radii of the axially extending through holes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner respectfully notes there is nothing in the claims that require the holes to be circular which renders the claims unclear as a hole can be any shape (rectangular, elliptical, or other varied shapes).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the radii of the radially extending through holes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner respectfully notes there is nothing in the claims that require the holes to be circular which renders the claims unclear as a hole can be any shape (rectangular, elliptical, or other varied shapes).
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 1-11 and 13 (as well as they are understood by the Examiner) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dittmar et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0132479 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
610
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Dittmar et al. discloses a refrigerant compressor (Fig. 1, 1), comprising:
a discharge portion (“a gas outlet opening (not shown) are provided” and “A first silencer device 7 connects to the gas outlet opening” [0033]); and
a muffler (7) disposed at the discharge portion ([0033]), the muffler including
an outer cylinder (26) having a central axis (31, 32), and
a sleeve (27) concentric with and radially inward of the outer cylinder (Fig. 1, Fig. 4) relative to the center axis and including a plurality of radially extending through holes (25), providing a resonance cavity (28) radially between the sleeve and the outer cylinder.
Regarding claim 2, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the muffler is attached to the discharge portion ([0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the resonance cavity is sealed at its axial ends (Fig. 1, [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, further comprising: a plurality of axially spaced annular plates (29) within the resonance cavity (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 4 as above, wherein each of the plurality of annular plates includes a plurality of axially extending through holes (30).
Regarding claim 6, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 5 as above, wherein the plurality of axially extending through holes are equally circumferentially spaced apart from one another (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 5 as above, wherein the radially extending through holes form axially spaced circumferential rows of radially extending through holes (Fig. 5, 25).
Regarding claim 8, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 5 as above, wherein the plates are positioned axially between, and radially outward of, immediately adjacent of the circumferential rows (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 5 as above, wherein the axially extending through holes are circumferentially aligned across two or more of the plates (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 5 as above, wherein the radii of the axially extending through holes (30, Fig. 4) are greater than the radii of the radially extending through holes (Fig. 4; the Examiner notes that Fig. 4 shows the axially extending through holes are larger than the radially extending through holes 25, which are shown as a pattern on the sleeve 27, and the radially extending through holes are not strictly required to be circular, also [0010] discloses the openings as 0.05mm and 1mm).
Regarding claim 11, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the radially extending through holes are circumferentially spaced from one another (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the muffler is configured to receive fluid from the discharge portion into the sleeve ([0033]).
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.
Claims 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittmar et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0132479 A1) in view of Gautam et al. (EP 3361084 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Dittmar et al. discloses a method, comprising:
providing a muffler (7) fluidly between a discharge portion (“a gas outlet opening (not shown) are provided” and “A first silencer device 7 connects to the gas outlet opening” [0033]) of a compressor (1) the muffler including:
a muffler (7) disposed at the discharge portion ([0033]), the muffler including
an outer cylinder (26) having including an inner diameter surface (Fig. 1 “The silencer chambers 28 are delimited externally by the silencer housing 26 and are arranged laterally behind the gas flow channel 27. They are designed to be circular ring-shaped in cross section.” [0042]), a central axis (31, 32), and
a sleeve (27) concentric with and radially inward of the outer cylinder (Fig. 1, Fig. 4) relative to the center axis and including a plurality of radially extending through holes (25), providing a resonance cavity (28) radially between the outer cylinder and the sleeve.
However, Dittmar et al. does not explicitly disclose, “a condenser”
Gautam et al. teaches, in the field of compressors (113) and mufflers (200), that the attenuated air stream (141, the air stream after the muffler) is channeled through an air cooler or intercooler (135) (e.g., a heat exchanger or condenser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the compressor and muffler of Dittmar et al. in loop including a heat exchanger or condenser a taught my Gautam et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “The attenuated airstream 141 may be channeled through an air cooler 135 (i.e., intercooler), such as a convectively cooled charge air cooler. The air cooler 135 may be configured to dissipate heat from the attenuated air stream 141, increasing its density. The resulting cooled and pressurized output air stream” ([0018]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dittmar et al. and Gautam et al. teach all of claim 14 as above, comprising:
providing a plurality of axially spaced annular plates (Dittmar et al., 29) within the resonance cavity (Dittmar et al., Fig. 1), each of the plurality of annular plates including a plurality extending through hole (Dittmar et al., 30).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dittmar et al. and Gautam et al. teach all of claim 15 as above, wherein the radially extending through holes form axially spaced circumferential rows of radially extending through holes (Dittmar et al., Fig. 5), and the providing the plurality of axially spaced annular plates step includes positioning the plurality of annular plates axially between (Dittmar et al., Fig. 1), and radially outward of, immediately adjacent of the circumferential rows (Dittmar et al., Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dittmar et al. and Gautam et al. teach all of claim 14 as above, comprising:
sealing the resonance cavity at its axial ends (Dittmar et al.; Fig. 1, [0033]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dittmar et al. and Gautam et al. teach all of claim 14 as above, comprising:
attaching the muffler to discharge portion (Dittmar et al.; [0033]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dittmar et al. and Gautam et al. teach all of claim 19 as above, wherein the muffler is configured to receive fluid from the discharge portion into the sleeve (Dittmar et al., [0033]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittmar et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0132479 A1) in view of Lucas et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0345497 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above.
However, Dittmar et al. does not explicitly disclose, “wherein the sleeve is welded to the cylinder.”
Lucas et al. teaches, in the field of resonators or mufflers (Fig. 1), that silencers (18) could be welded or brazed (Lucas et al., [0026]) where compatible with materials (see Dittmar et al., [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the muffler of Dittmar et al. by welding or brazing as taught by Lucas et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, “Alternatively, the silencer 18 could be welded or brazed where compatible with materials being joined. [0026]” and that welding metal parts together is considered an art recognized solution with suitability for an intended purpose (joining metal components together) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittmar et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0132479 A1) and Gautam et al. (EP 3361084 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lucas et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0345497 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dittmar et al. and Gautam et al. teach all of claim 14 as above.
However, the combination of Dittmar et al. and Gautam et al. do not teach or suggest, “welding the sleeve to the outer cylinder.
Lucas et al. teaches, in the field of resonators or mufflers (Fig. 1), that silencers (18) could be welded or brazed (Lucas et al., [0026]) where compatible with materials (see Dittmar et al., [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify system created by the combination of Dittmar et al. and Gautam et al. by welding or brazing as taught by Lucas et al., as all references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, “Alternatively, the silencer 18 could be welded or brazed where compatible with materials being joined. [0026]” and that welding metal parts together is considered an art recognized solution with suitability for an intended purpose (joining metal components together) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US Patent 9,625,077 B2 discloses a fluid line assembly (including a muffler).
PNG
media_image4.png
218
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US Patent 8,408,357 B2 discloses an air duct attenuator.
PNG
media_image5.png
240
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2010/0193282 A1 discloses a broadband noise resonator.
PNG
media_image6.png
348
460
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US Patent 6,467,572 B1 discloses a muffler.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745