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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of Amendment of April 1, 2026 which amended claim 22.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of valve species 1 (FIGS. 1-4); and compressor species 1 (FIG. 11); the claims readable upon these species include valve claims 1-13, 19; and compressor claims 20-22; in the reply filed on April 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
The Applicant did traverse the statement that there was no generic claim, as set forth at page 7 in the last paragraph, with regards to claims 1-19 directed to the various check valves. As noted in the traversal, the examiner agreed that to the extent that any of the valve species could be used with the any of the compressor species claims 1-19 are generic to the various compressor species.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 should begin “A check valve” and claims 2-23 should begin “The check valve according to claim …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 should begin “A scroll compressor” and claims 21 and 22 should begin “The scroll compressor according to claim…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 22 “on order” should be “in order”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “the transition” should be “a transition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “section” should be “passage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2 and 3 “of said check valve (10)” should be deleted as being redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “is provided” should be “are provided”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “the” should be inserted before “at least one flow”. 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.
Claims 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “close to” in claim 1 line 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because in lines 19 and 20 the connection channel and the opening arranged close to the flow region is set forth as “for capturing the reduced pressure refrigerant pressure and for transferring said reduced refrigerant pressure to an opening” of the stop surface. It is clear how the opening arrange close to the flow region would transfer a pressure but it is unclear what additional or further limitation limits “for capturing” places on the performance of the channel and the opening. It is noted that the flow thru the acceleration passage continues through the passage and is not “captured” as understood.
Claim 2 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear which of the “at least one…” (connection channel and/or flow accelerating passage” is being referred to in claim 2. It is noted that claim 1 sets forth each of these limitations as “at least one…(element)”. The references to “the connection channel”, “the flow accelerating passage” and the references to “the opening” associated with the connection channel in claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are similarly confusing.
Claim 8 is vague and indefinite since it is unclear what “releases the flow” is intended to mean in line 2. It is noted that claim 1 at line 10-14 already set forth that the in the opening position the valve allows flow after entering the chamber to flow out of the at least one accelerating passage. It is unclear what “releases the flow” means and how or if it further limits the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "said inner surface of said outer section of said housing" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2 and 3 “the scroll unit” should be “a scroll unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “an outlet” should be “the outlet”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As noted above claim 8 is vague and indefinite but as understood does not further limit the claimed invention of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewar et al (USPN 6,224,356) in view of Kauffman et al (USPN 3,428,081).
With regards to claims 1 and 20, Dewar et al disclose s a scroll compressor (see Fig. 1) provided with a check valve (30, 40) arranged between an outlet (26) of the scroll unit (22, 24) and an outlet chamber (29) arranged within an outer housing ((including the top wall of Fig. 1) of said scroll compressor (claim 20); the check valve comprising a valve chamber (labeled in annotated Fig. 3 below); said valve chamber extending between the bottom section/seating surface (labeled in the annotated figure below) and a stroke limiter (30) arranged at a distance from said bottom section (clearly shown below),a valve element (40) arranged in the valve chamber and being moveable in said valve chamber between said bottom section and said stroke limiter, the valve element (40) in a closing position (Fig. 3) is abutting on a sealing surface (labeled in annotated Fig. 3 below) of the bottom section and prevents a flow of refrigerant out of said valve chamber through said bottom opening (labeled in annotated Fig. 3) and in an opening position (Fig. 1) the valve element is abutting on a stop surface (labeled in annotated Fig. 3) of said stroke limiter (30) wherein in the opening position of the valve element a flow of refrigerant after having entered the valve chamber leaves the valve chamber through at least one outlet passage (passages 28 shown in Figs. 1-3) wherein the at least one outlet passage comprises at least one flow accelerating passage (each outlet passage is an acceleration passage in view of the fact that the flow out of the relatively larger valve chamber flows thru the smaller cross-sectioned passages 28 and would accelerate therein) and therein provides a flow region of reduced refrigerant pressure (P2, via the Bernoulli principle) with respect to the refrigerant pressure (P1) within the valve chamber (56) and wherein at least one connection channel (34) extending in said stroke limiter (30) comprises an opening (labeled opening 1 in the annotated figure) arranged close to the flow region of reduced refrigerant pressure (P2) for capturing the reduced refrigerant pressure (P2) and for transferring said reduced refrigerant pressure (P2) to an opening (opening 2 in the annotated Fig. 3) arranged in an area of the stop surface of the stroke limiter in order to support retaining of the valve element in its opening position (see col. 2 lines 31-33).
Dewar et al do not disclose the check valve comprising a valve housing having a bottom section with a bottom opening enabling a flow of refrigerant into and out of a valve chamber.
Kaufmann et al (USPN 3,428,081) disclose a compressor having two embodiments of valves. A first (Fig. 4, similar to Dewar et al) including a valve (16) having a stop (17) mounted within an opening (20) in a wall of the compressor; and, a second (Fig. 7) including the same valve (16) and stopper/stroke limiter (17) but mounted within a valve housing (37) having a bottom section (below the valve seat) with a bottom opening (22) enabling a flow of refrigerant into and out of a valve chamber (defined between the valve seat and the stopper).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the valve and stopper of Dewar et al by placing a valve housing having a bottom section around the valve in order to allow the valve to be installed, removed and maintained without concern or damage to the surrounding compressor wall via a threading on the outer housing surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, as shown in Fig. 3 of Dewar et al the opening of the connection channel (34) is located adjacent an outlet end (labeled in the annotated figure) of said flow accelerating passage (28).
With regards to claim 3, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, but Dewar et al does not disclose that the opening of the connection channel (34) is located at the transition of a surface section of the stroke limiter (30) limiting the flow accelerating passage and a surface section (top surface of the stroke limiter 30) of the stroke limiter extending outside of said flow accelerating passage and opposite to said stop surface. Dewar et al do teach that the connection channels are angled upwards towards or closer to the surface section of the stroke limiter in Fig. 3. Further, Kauffman et al disclose passages 29 communicating with a groove on the lower surface of the stroke limiter. At the time of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the opening of the connection passages to be partially in the surface section, thus making them at the transition, to allow the fluid acting to push the valve back of the stroke limiter to have more direct access to the connection passage. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art; see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regards to claim 4, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein the opening (opening 2) in the stop surface of the stroke limiter is an opening of a pocket (36) arranged in the stroke limiter (54) and open to the stop surface.
With regards to claim 5, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, Dewar et al teaches the connection passages communicating with a single pocket or opening 36 and does not teach that wherein the opening is at least a section of an opening of a circular groove extending within the stroke limiter and open to the stop surface. As noted above Kauffman et al disclose a stroke limiter having plural passages as shown in Fig. 7 the passages communicate with a circular groove in the lower surface of the stroke limiter. At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a circular groove communicating with the plural passages in the limiter, as taught by Kauffman et al; instead of single opening 36 communicating with the plural passages of Dewar et al since a single opening and a circular groove communicating to a stroke limiter surface are recognized as equivalence for their use in the art of communicating fluid pressure to the seating surface of a valve and selection of either of these known equivalents to bias or actuate the valve would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
With regards to claim 6, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein said valve element (40) is freely moveable between its opening (Fig. 1) and closing position (Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 7, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve element (40) in its opening position extends essentially parallel to its closing position (see Figs. 1 and 3).
With regards to claim 8, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve element (40) in its opening position (Fig. 1) releases the flow of refrigerant entering the valve chamber through said bottom opening to exit at least in part through said flow accelerating passage (when in the position of Fig. 1 the flow is as claimed).
With regards to claim 9, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein said flow accelerating passage (28) extends towards an outlet opening (labeled in the annotated figure) of the housing of said check valve arranged on a side (top side) of said stroke limiter opposite to said bottom section. (34).
With regards to claim 10, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein said flow accelerating passage (28) extends between an outer surface (labeled in the annotated figure) of the stroke limiter (17) and a surface of the housing (labeled in the annotated figure) facing said outer surface.
With regards to claim 11, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein said at least one flow accelerating passage extends transverse (clearly seen in Fig. 3) to said valve element in its opening position.
With regards to claim 12, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein said flow accelerating passage extends transverse to said bottom section (clearly seen in Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 13, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein the outer surface of said stroke limiter and said inner surface of said outer section of said housing extend transverse to said bottom section of said housing (clearly seen in Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 19, Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al disclose a check valve according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of connection channels (34) are provided in said stroke limiter (two shown in Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Chambers (USPN 5,173,042).
As set forth above Dewar et al in view pf Kauffmann et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed but do not disclose the check valve being mounted directly on/in an outlet of the scroll unit. Chambers in Fig. 1 discloses a similar scroll compressor having an outlet check valve 92 mounted directly on/in an outlet (the opening in plate 20) of the scroll unit.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the outlet check valve directly in the scroll unit outlet, as taught by Chambers, as a well-known location that is directly acted upon by the compressed gas of the scroll unit.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewar et al in view of Kauffman et al and Chambers as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Fairbanks (USPN 5,474,431).
As set forth above Dewar et al in view of Kauffmann et al and Chamber disclose the invention substantially as claimed but do not disclose wherein a cross section of said outlet passage which comprises at least one flow accelerating passage corresponds to 100% to 200% of a cross section of the outlet of the scroll unit.
Fairbanks discloses a similar scroll compressor and discloses that the diameter of the outlet opening of the scroll unit can be optimized via structures such as elements 204, 202 to have diameters of different sizes and geometries.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the size of the outlet opening, and thus the correspondence between the outlet passage and the cross section of the outlet of the scroll unit, in order to optimize and modulate the compression ratio for optimum performance (see abstract of Fairbanks). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights