CTNF 18/899,888 CTNF 88814 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 10-11 and 15-16 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 10 recites the limitation "a separator wall" in lines 3-4 is same or different than separator wall of line 7 of claim 1. For examination purposes, it is considered same and is being considered as -- the separator wall --. Claim 11 recites “the vents” and lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be amended to “vents”. Claim 15 recites “the reservoir portions” and lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be amended to “reservoir portions”. Claim 16 recites “the reservoir portions” and lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be amended to “reservoir portions”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 - 07-08-aia AIA (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 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12, 15-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lord et al. (US 5704215 A). In regards to claim 1 , Lord discloses a condenser vessel (condenser 16) including an oil storage and separation portion (an oil-refrigerant separator 50, settles on the bottom 64 of the separator 50) for separating a refrigerant vapor from oil in a temperature conditioning system (a refrigeration system), the condenser vessel (16) comprising: a casing (a shell or housing 36) having an inlet (54), adapted to receive a mixture of oil and refrigerant vapor (col.3, lines 45-47), and an outlet (oil 82 flows out of outlet 74 and refrigerant flows out of the outlet 76) adapted to transfer the oil separated from the mixture of the oil and the refrigerant vapor outside the condenser vessel (col.4, lines 1-5); and a separator wall (separator wall 60) positioned inside the casing (36) to define a condenser portion (lower chamber with tubes 38) and the oil storage and separation portion within the casing (36), wherein the separator wall (60) is positioned along a lateral axis (A-A’) (i.e., along a lateral vertical axis perpendicular on the central axis and along a lateral horizontal axis which is parallel to the central axis of the casing of the condenser vessel) of the casing. In regards to claim 2 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches wherein the lateral axis (A-A’) is substantially perpendicular to a horizontal axis (X-X’) passing through a center of the casing (as can be seen in Fig. 5). In regards to claim 4 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches wherein the condenser portion (lower chamber with tubes 38) condenses the refrigerant vapor to refrigerant fluid (col.3, lines 4-7) and transfers the refrigerant fluid to an expansion valve (30) via a refrigerant liquid line . In regards to claim 5 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches wherein the oil storage and separation portion (upper chamber with oil separator 50) is enclosed within a secondary casing (housing 52) inside the casing (36) of the condenser vessel (16). In regards to claim 9 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches wherein a central axis (I-I’) of the inlet (54) is inclined at an acute angle relative to the lateral axis (A-A’) of the casing (col.3, lines 45-49) . In regards to claim 12 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches wherein an internal volume of the oil storage and separation portion (upper half of the shell 36) is at least equal to an internal volume of the condenser portion (condenser are only placed in the bottom half of the shell; col.1, lines 46-48; therefore, the upper half and the bottom half are equal). In regards to claim 15 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches further comprising at least one outlet tube (outlet 76) immersed in each of the reservoir portions (bottom portion 64) of the oil storage and separation portion, wherein the outlet tube (76) is adapted to transfer oil from the reservoir portion to the outlet of the casing (36). In regards to claim 16 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches wherein an oil level of each of the reservoir portions (bottom portion 64) is greater than an oil level in a portion of the casing below the inlet of the casing (as can be seen in Fig. 4). In regards to claim 17 , Lord discloses a temperature conditioning system (a refrigeration system) , having a refrigerant circuit comprising: a compressor (12), for compressing a refrigerant vapor; a condenser vessel (16) including an oil storage and separation portion (an oil-refrigerant separator 50, settles on the bottom 64 of the separator 50) for separating oil from a mixture of oil and refrigerant vapor discharged from the compressor (col.3, lines 54-58), the oil storage and separation portion adapted to transfer the separated refrigerant vapor to a condenser portion (lower chamber with tubing 38) ; the condenser portion for condensing the separated refrigerant vapor; an expansion valve (30) for expanding the condensed refrigerant fluid; and an evaporator (14) for evaporating the refrigerant fluid, wherein the compressor (12), the condenser vessel (16), the condenser portion, the expansion valve (30), and the evaporator (14) are connected in sequence (implicit), and wherein the condenser vessel (16) is according to any of the preceding claims. In regards to claim 18 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 17. Further, Lord teaches wherein the condenser vessel (16) comprises a separator wall (separator wall 60) positioned inside a casing (a shell or housing 36) to define the condenser portion (lower chamber with tubing 38) and the oil storage and separation portion (64/50) within the casing (36) , wherein the separator wall (60) is positioned along a lateral axis (A-A’) of the casing (36) substantially perpendicular to a horizontal axis (X-X’) through a center of the casing (as can be seen in Figs. 3-5). In regards to claim 19 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 17. Further, Lord teaches wherein an internal volume of the oil storage and separation portion (upper half of the shell 36) is at least equal to an internal volume of the condenser portion (condenser are only placed in the bottom half of the shell; col.1, lines 46-48; therefore, the upper half and the bottom half are equal). Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of r ejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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 depends on may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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. 07-21-fti Claim s 3, 6-7, 11 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (US 5704215 A) in view of MEI et al. (CN 116336700 A, see attached translation) . In regards to claim 3 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the separator wall comprises a plurality of vents defined proximal to an upper end of the separator wall for transferring refrigerant vapor separated from the mixture of the oil and the refrigerant vapor to the condenser portion. MEI teaches a condenser wherein the separator wall (side walls 204 and; Fig. 1C) comprises a plurality of vents (exhaust ports 210.1, 210.2) defined proximal to an upper end of the separator wall (side walls 204 and; Fig. 1C) for transferring refrigerant vapor separated from the mixture of the oil and the refrigerant vapor to the condenser portion (first and second chambers 104b, 105b with tubing) . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lord such that the separator wall comprises a plurality of vents defined proximal to an upper end of the separator wall for transferring refrigerant vapor separated from the mixture of the oil and the refrigerant vapor to the condenser portion as taught by MEI in order to provide the refrigerant sufficient flight distance in the separation chamber to achieve separation of the lubricating oil (par. 32 of MEI). In regards to claim 6 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches wherein the oil storage and separation portion (upper chamber with oil separator 50) further comprises a mesh eliminator (mesh eliminator 70) disposed on the separator wall (60) on both sides of the inlet (54) and in contact with an inner periphery of the casing (36) , but fails to explicitly teach a plurality of mesh eliminators wherein the mesh eliminators are spaced apart from each other. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the addition of more units of a type already extant in a system for the sole purpose of increasing the function of those units (e.g. more eliminators to remove additional oil from the mixture) is obvious duplication of parts and is a matter of routine skill in the art as no unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 Vl. B. Duplication of Parts and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In regards to claim 7 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 6. Further, Lord teaches wherein each of the mesh eliminators (70) define a reservoir portion (between the walls of 70) downstream of the mesh eliminators (70) enclosed by the casing (36). In regards to claim 11 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the vents are defined in the separator wall proximal to ends of the casing and distal from the inlet of the casing. MEI teaches a condenser wherein the vents (exhaust ports 210.1, 210.2) are defined in the separator wall (side walls 204 and; Fig. 1C) proximal to ends of the casing (housing 101) and distal from the inlet ( inlet pipes 301a ) of the casing (101). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lord such that the vents are defined in the separator wall proximal to ends of the casing and distal from the inlet of the casing as taught by MEI in order to provide the refrigerant sufficient flight distance in the separation chamber to achieve separation of the lubricating oil (par. 32 of MEI). In regards to claim 20 , Lord discloses a method for separating oil from a refrigerant fluid in a temperature conditioning system (a refrigeration system) , the method comprising: providing a condenser vessel (a condenser 16) comprising: a casing (a shell or housing 36) having an inlet (54) and an outlet (oil 82 flows out of outlet 74 and refrigerant flows out of the outlet 76); and a separator wall (separator wall 60) positioned inside the casing (36) to define a condenser portion (lower chamber with tubing 38) and an oil storage and separation portion (an oil-refrigerant separator 50, settles on the bottom 64 of the separator 50) within the casing (36), wherein the separator wall (60) is positioned along a lateral axis (A-A’) of the casing (36); and receiving, via the inlet (54), a mixture of oil and refrigerant vapor (col.3, lines 54-58) ; separating refrigerant vapor by impinging the received mixture of oil and refrigerant vapor on at least one of a face plate of a nozzle (suction nozzle 22) seated within the inlet (54) and the separator wall (60); filtering the mixture using a mesh eliminator (mesh eliminator 70) to aggregate oil particulates from the mixture to form larger oil droplets collected by a bottom portion (bottom 64) of the oil storage and separator portion (50/64) ; discharging, via the outlet (74), the oil separated from the mixture of the oil and the refrigerant vapor outside the condenser vessel (16), but fails to explicitly teach a plurality of mesh eliminators; conveying the separated refrigerant vapor, via a plurality of vents defined in the separator wall, to the condenser portion. MEI teaches a condenser wherein conveying the separated refrigerant vapor, via a plurality of vents (exhaust ports 210.1, 210.2) defined in the separator wall (in the upper inclined portions of separator walls 204 and 205), to the condenser portion (first and second chambers 104b, 105b with tubing) . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lord such that conveying the separated refrigerant vapor, via a plurality of vents defined in the separator wall, to the condenser portion as taught by MEI in order to provide the refrigerant sufficient flight distance in the separation chamber to achieve separation of the lubricating oil (par. 32 of MEI). In regards to the limitations that having a plurality of mesh eliminators, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the addition of more units of a type already extant in a system for the sole purpose of increasing the function of those units (e.g. more eliminators to remove additional oil from the mixture) is obvious duplication of parts and is a matter of routine skill in the art as no unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 Vl. B. Duplication of Parts and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . 07-21-fti Claim s 8 and 10 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (US 5704215 A) in view of O'Connor (US 5465783 A) . In regards to claim 8 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches wherein the inlet (54) further comprises a nozzle (suction nozzle 22) seated within the inlet (54), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the nozzle comprises: a hollow shaft having an external diameter smaller than an internal diameter of the inlet, the hollow shaft adapted to be removably fastened to the inlet; and a pair of protruding jaw portions extending from the hollow shaft and disposed radially opposite to each other, wherein the pair of protruding jaw portions are adapted to support a face plate. O'Connor teaches a device wherein the nozzle (Fig. 4) comprises: a hollow shaft (54) having an external diameter smaller than an internal diameter of the inlet (inlet pipe 30), the hollow shaft (54) adapted to be removably fastened to the inlet (30); and a pair of protruding jaw portions (parts between holes 58) extending from the hollow shaft (54) and disposed radially opposite to each other, wherein the pair of protruding jaw portions are adapted to support a face plate (56). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lord such that the nozzle comprises: a hollow shaft having an external diameter smaller than an internal diameter of the inlet, the hollow shaft adapted to be removably fastened to the inlet; and a pair of protruding jaw portions extending from the hollow shaft and disposed radially opposite to each other, wherein the pair of protruding jaw portions are adapted to support a face plate as taught by O'Connor to prevent from impinging directly on the ends of the tubes in order to minimize erosion (col.8, lines 7-9 of O'Connor). In regards to claim 10 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Lord teaches wherein the face plate (side wall of inlet 54) is oriented orthogonally relative to a central axis (I-I’) of the inlet (54) to redirect a flow of a mixture of oil and refrigerant vapor to at least one of an inner surface of the casing, a surface of a separator wall (60), and a bottom portion (64) of the casing (52) . 07-21-fti Claim s 13-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (US 5704215 A) in view of Majgaonkar et al. (US 20210302080 A1) . In regards to claim 13 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising at least one sensor adapted to detect an oil level in the reservoir portion. Majgaonkar a condenser further comprising at least one sensor adapted to detect an oil level in the reservoir portion (refer to par. 39). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lord such that further comprising at least one sensor adapted to detect an oil level in the reservoir portion as taught by Majgaonkar in order to measure the oil level in the shell of the condenser. In regards to claim 14 , Lord meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 13. Further, Lord teaches wherein the at least one sensor is mounted on a bottom surface of the reservoir portion of the casing (refer to par. 39). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/899,888 Page 13 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights