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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 regarding claims 1-11 and 13 with respect to Dittmar et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0132479 A1) not disclosing “a refrigerant compressor” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1-11 and 13. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a refrigerant compressor” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Additionally; Dittmar et al. discloses a “blower” where “gases are also compressed during the conveying [0002]”, and it is generally understood that gasses are refrigerants, and therefore Dittmar discloses a “refrigerant compressor” as claimed by the applicant.
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 1-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dittmar et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0132479 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dittmar et al. discloses a refrigerant compressor (Fig. 1, 1; [0002]), 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]).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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]) by respective annular radially inwardly extending extensions received against the sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
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 plurality of annular 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 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittmar et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0132479 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0193282 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Dittmar et al. discloses all of claim 5 as above wherein, each of the plurality of axially extending through holes is circular (Fig. 4, 30) and has a first radius (Fig. 4), wherein each of the plurality of radially extending through holes has a second radius (e.g., opening size which is indicated as between 0.05mm and 1mm [0010]), wherein the first radius is greater than the second radius (Fig. 4).
However, Dittmar et al. does not disclose the radially extending holes as circular.
Kim et al. teaches in the field of noise resonators, circular radially extending holes (58, 60).
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. to have circular radially extending through holes be circular as taught by Kim et al. as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, “In the exemplary embodiment illustrated, each first conduit aperture 58 is generally cylindrical and defined by an axis F-F, while each second conduit aperture 60 is generally cylindrical and defined by an axis G-G, although the first conduit apertures 58 and the second conduit apertures 60 need not be cylindrical. [0034]” Additionally, the Examiner respectfully notes that the only difference between Dittmar et al. and the immediate claim is the shape of radially extending holes and a person of ordinary skill would appreciate that a slot and a circular aperture of the same surface area in a Helmholtz resonator would resonate in a similar manner to attenuate sound.
Claims 14-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0058735 A1) in view of Dittmar et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0132479 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Takayama et al. discloses a method, comprising:
providing a muffler (Fig. 7, 2) fluidly between a discharge potion (35) of a refrigerant compressor (3, [0078] “refrigerant circuit”) and a condenser (4, 5, 9) of a refrigerant loop ([0078])
However, Takayama et al. does not explicitly disclose, “the muffler including an outer cylinder including an inner diameter surface and a center axis, and a sleeve concentric with the outer cylinder and including a plurality of radially extending through holes, providing a resonance cavity radially between the outer cylinder and the sleeve;”
Dittmar et al. teaches, in the field of reducing vibration and noise of fluid movers, a muffler (7) including an outer cylinder (26) 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the muffler on the discharge outlet of the refrigerant compressor of Takayama et al. to be the silencer of Dittmar et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor (e.g., the reduction of vibration and noise of fluid movers), and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “The at least one silencer device is free of filler materials, so that the blower arrangement is also suitable for conveying chemically critical gases, for conveying oxygen and/or ozone. It can thus also be produced very inexpensively. [0008]”
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Takayama et al. and Dittmar 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 Takayama et al. and Dittmar 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 Takayama et al. and Dittmar et al. teach all of claim 14 as above, comprising:
sealing the resonance cavity at its axial ends (Dittmar et al.; Fig. 1, [0033]) by respective annular radially inwardly extension received against the sleeve (Dittmar et al., see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Takayama et al. and Dittmar 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 Takayama et al. and Dittmar 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]).
Regarding claim 21, Takayama et al. discloses a refrigerant system (Fig. 7), comprising:
a refrigerant loop (Fig. 7, [0078]) including a compressor (3), a condenser (4, 5, 9), an evaporator (7), and an expansion device (6), the compressor including a discharge portion (35) configured to discharge refrigerant from the compressor toward the condenser; and
a muffler (2) disposed at the discharge portion and fluidly between the discharge portion and the condenser (Fig. 7), wherein the muffler is configured to receive refrigerant discharge from the discharge portion ([0078, Fig. 7)
However, Takayama et al. does not explicitly disclose, “the muffler including an outer cylinder including an inner diameter surface and a center axis, and a sleeve concentric with and radially inward of the outer cylinder relative to the axis; the sleeve including a plurality of radially extending through holes, wherein a resonance cavity is provided radially between the sleeve and the outer cylinder”
Dittmar et al. teaches, in the field of reducing vibration and noise of fluid movers, a muffler (7) including an outer cylinder (26) 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the muffler on the discharge outlet of the refrigerant compressor of Takayama et al. to be the silencer of Dittmar et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor (e.g., the reduction of vibration and noise of fluid movers), and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “The at least one silencer device is free of filler materials, so that the blower arrangement is also suitable for conveying chemically critical gases, for conveying oxygen and/or ozone. It can thus also be produced very inexpensively. [0008]”
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Takayama et al. and Dittmar et al. teach all of claim 21 as above, wherein a plurality of axially spaced annular plates (Dittmar et al., 29) are located within the resonance cavity (Dittmar et al., Fig .1), each of the plurality of annular plates including a plurality of axially extending through holes (Dittmar et al., 30), wherein the plurality of radially extending through holes form axially spaced circumferential rows of radially extending through holes(Dittmar et al., 25), and wherein the plurality of axially spaced annular plates are positioned axially between, and radially outward of, immediately adjacent ones of the axially spaced circumferential rows (Dittmar et al., Fig. 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights