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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-24 remain pending in the application. Claims 15-24 remain withdrawn from consideration.
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Publication KR20060035007(A) to Lee in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2005/0002811 to Froeslev.
The Examiner notes that all citations to Lee herein refer to the English language translation provided by the Applicant.
Referring to claim 1, Lee teaches a reciprocating compressor comprising:
a shell that defines an inner space therein (Figures 1-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; the title is for a hermetic compressor, which means there is a hermetic casing defining an inner space and the claims recite an enclosed compressor assembly, page 5, third paragraph of background art section, and pages 8-11);
a driving motor (5) disposed in the inner space of the shell, the driving motor (5) comprising a rotor (7); a drive shaft (9) coupled to the rotor (7) of the driving motor (5) (Figures 1-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; page 5, third paragraph of background art section, and pages 8-11);
a piston (15) coupled to the drive shaft (9) and configured to perform a reciprocating motion (Fig. 1; page 5, third-sixth paragraphs of background art section);
a cylinder (17, 30) that accommodates the piston (15) and defines a compression chamber (18, 32) together with the piston (15) inserted in the cylinder (17, 30), wherein the piston (15) is configured to perform the reciprocating motion relative to the cylinder (17, 32) (Figures 1-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; page 5, third paragraph of background art section, and pages 8-11);
a valve plate (60) that is coupled to a front-end surface of the cylinder (17, 30) and faces the piston (15), the valve plate (60) defining a suction port (62) and a discharge port (64) that are configured to fluidly communicate with the compression chamber (18, 32) (Figures 1-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; page 5, third paragraph of background art section, and pages 8-11);
a suction valve (50) disposed between the cylinder (18, 32) and the valve plate (60), the suction valve (50) comprising a reed valve portion (52) configured to open and close the suction port (52) based on an end of the reed valve portion (52) moving relative to another end of the reed valve portion (52) (Figures 1-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; page 5, third paragraph of background art section, and pages 8-11); and
a suction valve stopper (43) disposed between the suction valve (50) and the cylinder (18, 32), the suction valve stopper (43) configured to interfere with the reed valve portion (52) to thereby limit an opening amount of the reed valve portion (52) (Figures 1-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; page 5, third paragraph of background art section, and pages 8-11).
[AltContent: textbox (Stopper Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Valve Accommodation Portion)][AltContent: textbox (Contact Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fixing Portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
242
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Lee Figure 2.
Lee is silent as to the material of the stopper. Froeslev teaches a compressor wherein a valve stopper (17) is made of an elastic material to elastically limit an opening or closing operation of a valve based on the valve being opened or closed (high-grade steel has an elasticity and therefore an elastic material) (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0018] and [0032], and claim 11).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the suction valve stopper from an elastic material, as taught by Froeslev, in order to use a strong material that is durable, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 2, Lee and Froeslev teach a reciprocating compressor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but are silent as to rigidity. However, it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make a rigidity of the suction valve stopper greater than or equal to a rigidity of the suction valve, since it cannot perform the function of stopping the suction valve if the stopper has a rigidity less than the suction valve, otherwise the stopper would just bend instead of performing the function of stopping the suction valve.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Publication KR20060035007(A) to Lee in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2005/0002811 to Froeslev and U. S. Patent 4,778,360 to Ikeda.
Referring to claim 3, Lee and Froeslev teach a reciprocating compressor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Lee further teaches a compressor wherein:
the suction valve stopper (17) comprises at least one stopper portion that extends toward a radial center of the suction port (52) and overlaps with a side surface of the reed valve portion (52) (Figures 1-4, Fig. 2 annotated above; page 5, third paragraph of background art section, and pages 8-10).
Lee and Froeslev do not teach a stopper that is bent. Ikeda teaches a compressor wherein:
at least a portion of at least one stopper portion (11) is bent in a direction away from a reed valve portion (10) and spaced apart from the reed valve portion (10) (Fig. 1; col. 5 lines 30-33, and col. 6 lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the compressor taught by Lee with the bent stopper taught by Ikeda in order to define the distance the valve can travel by providing a boundary to movement.
Referring to claim 4, Lee, Froeslev and Ikeda teach a reciprocating compressor comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, and Lee further teaches a compressor wherein:
the at least one stopper portion comprises: a fixing portion fixed to the front-end surface of the cylinder (17, 30) and disposed at a radial outer periphery of the compression chamber (18, 32); and a contact portion that is configured to contact the reed valve portion (52) based on the reed valve portion being opened (Figures 1-4, Fig. 2 annotated above; page 5, third paragraph of background art section, and pages 8-10).
Lee and Froeslev do not teach a stopper that is bent. Ikeda further teaches a compressor wherein:
a bent portion that extends from the fixing portion toward the radial center of the suction port (9) and is bent toward the compression chamber (1) in the direction away from the reed valve portion (10) and a contact portion that extends from the bent portion and wherein the bent portion is disposed radially between an inner circumferential surface of the compression chamber (1) and an outer circumferential surface of the reed valve portion (10) (Fig. 1, annotated below; col. 5 lines 30-33, and col. 6 lines 20-25).
[AltContent: textbox (Bent Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fixing Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contact Portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
318
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ikeda Figure 1.
Referring to claim 5, Lee, Froeslev and Ikeda teach a reciprocating compressor comprising all the limitations of claim 4, as detailed above, but Lee and Froeslev do not teach a stopper that is bent. Ikeda further teaches a compressor wherein:
a distance from the bent portion to an end of the contact portion is less than a length of the reed valve portion (10) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 5 lines 30-33, and col. 6 lines 20-25).
Referring to claim 6, Lee, Froeslev and Ikeda teach a reciprocating compressor comprising all the limitations of claim 4, as detailed above, and Lee further teaches a compressor wherein:
the suction valve stopper (43) defines a valve accommodating portion that faces the reed valve portion (52) and passes through the suction valve stopper (43), and wherein the contact portion is accommodated in the valve accommodating portion (Figures 1-4, Fig. 2 annotated above; page 5, third paragraph of background art section, and pages 8-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach a reciprocating compressor comprising all the limitations of claim 8, but more specifically wherein the at least one stopper portion comprises: a first stopper portion disposed at a first side of a longitudinal axis of the reed valve portion; and a second stopper portion disposed at a second side of the longitudinal axis of the reed valve portion and spaced apart from the first stopper portion, wherein the first stopper portion and the second stopper portion are symmetrical to each other with respect to the longitudinal axis of the reed valve portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Lee does not teach a stopper “made of an elastic member” as claimed. Remarks 2. However, as detailed above, Lee is not relied upon for this teaching, Froeslev is cited for this teaching.
The Applicant argues that Froeslev does not teach a stopper for a suction valve. Remarks 2. However, Froeslev is not relied upon for teaching the claimed stopper for a suction valve, Lee is already cited for this. Froeslev is cited only for teaching a stopepr material which is elastic.
The Applicant argues that Froeslev does not teach an elastic material for the stopper as claimed. Remarks 2. The Applicant argues that the cited high-grade steel taught by Froeslev is a rigid material and not an elastic material as claimed. However, while high-grade steel may have a rigidity, it is also an elastic material as claimed. An elastic material is a material that deforms under a force and then returns to its initial shape once the force is removed. The elasticity of a material is the ability of the material resist permanent deformation, and as such steel is actually more elastic than rubber. The cited high-grade steel member is an elastic member as claimed.
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 BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights