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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 6924888 to Hitachi Johnson Controls Air Conditioning Inc. (Hitachi) (Machine translation has been used for translational purposes).
Regarding claim 41, A compressor using, as refrigerant, a composition that contains one or more of ethylene-based fluoroolefins, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), and 1,3,3,3- tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234ze) ([10]), the compressor comprising:
a discharge pipe (120, fig. 1), wherein the discharge pipe is made of stainless steel or carbon steel ([128]).
Regarding claim 42, Hitachi discloses the compressor according to claim 41, wherein the discharge pipe is made of any one of SUS304, SUS316, STPG370, and STS370 ([128]).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,158,995 to Muramatsu et al (Muramatsu).
Regarding claim 47, Hitachi discloses a compressor using, as refrigerant, a composition containing one or more selected from the group consisting of ethylene-based fluoroolefins, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), and 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234ze), the compressor comprising:
a casing (1, 1b, fig. 2) including an intake pipe connection section (9, fig. 3), wherein the intake pipe connection section is made of stainless steel or carbon steel (sleeve is made of steel; col. 3, lines 48-53).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 43-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi.
Regarding claim 43, Hitachi discloses the compressor according to claim 41, but does not explicitly disclose that the discharge pipe has a thickness greater than 1.2 mm.
However, having a specific size of a pipe is mere design choice. It would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the discharge pipe with a thickness greater than 1.2 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 44, Hitachi discloses the compressor according to claim 42, but does not explicitly disclose that the discharge pipe has a thickness greater than 1.2 mm.
However, having a specific size of a pipe is mere design choice. It would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the discharge pipe with a thickness greater than 1.2 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 45, Hitachi discloses the compressor according to claim 41, but does not explicitly disclose that the discharge pipe has a thickness greater than 1.5 mm.
However, having a specific size of a pipe is mere design choice. It would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the discharge pipe with a thickness greater than 1.5 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 46, Hitachi discloses the compressor according to claim 42, but does not explicitly disclose that the discharge pipe has a thickness greater than 1.5 mm.
However, having a specific size of a pipe is mere design choice. It would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the discharge pipe with a thickness greater than 1.5 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of JPH 04-62498 (Publication 498, hereinafter).
Regarding claim 48, Hitachi discloses the compressor according to claim 47, but does not explicitly disclose which Publication 498 discloses:
the intake pipe connection section (5, figs. 1-3) is made of any one of SUS304, SUS316, STPG370, and STS370 (see machine translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the intake pipe connection section made of any one of SUS304 as taught by Publication 498 in the compressor of Muramatsu so as to provide improved insulation (machine translation; Publication 498).
Claim(s) 49, 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu.
Regarding claim 49, Muramatsu discloses the compressor according to claim 47, but does not explicitly disclose that the discharge pipe has a thickness greater than 1.2 mm.
However, having a specific size of a pipe is mere design choice. It would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the discharge pipe with a thickness greater than 1.2 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 51, Hitachi discloses the compressor according to claim 47, but does not explicitly disclose that the discharge pipe has a thickness greater than 1.5 mm.
However, having a specific size of a pipe is mere design choice. It would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the discharge pipe with a thickness greater than 1.5 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 50 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu combined with Publication 498.
Regarding claim 50, Muramatsu combined with Publication 498 discloses the compressor according to claim 48, but does not explicitly disclose that the discharge pipe has a thickness greater than 1.2 mm.
However, having a specific size of a pipe is mere design choice. It would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the discharge pipe with a thickness greater than 1.2 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 52, Muramatsu combined with Publication 498 discloses the compressor according to claim 48, but does not explicitly disclose that the discharge pipe has a thickness greater than 1.5 mm.
However, having a specific size of a pipe is mere design choice. It would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the discharge pipe with a thickness greater than 1.5 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights