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 .
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(s) 1, 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102011115836 to Maeser Martin in view of US 3,866,433 to Krug.
In Reference to Claim 1 and 13
Martin discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
760
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A compressor assembly, comprising:
a crankcase 6 comprising an internal crankcase chamber 6.1;
a first suction port 11 fluidly coupling a suction line 19 with the crankcase chamber;
a first piston 3 disposed inside a first cylinder 2, the first piston comprising a first transfer port fluidly coupling the crankcase chamber with the inside of the first cylinder, the first transfer port comprising a piston valve 13 that merely allows flow from the crankcase chamber to inside of the first cylinder; and a first discharge port fluidly coupling the inside of the first cylinder with a first cylinder head 15 the first discharge port comprising a discharge valve 14 that merely allows flow from the inside of the first cylinder 2 to the cylinder head 15.
Martin does not disclose:
a suction port valve disposed at the suction port 11 between the suction line and the crankcase chamber, wherein the suction port valve merely allows flow from the suction line to the crankcase chamber 6.1
Krug discloses a compressor with a condenser for a refrigeration power means, see Fig.1 and further discloses an inlet with an expansion valve / check valve, see col. 4 line 5-24.
At the time claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to include a check valve or expansion valve inlet, combine the teachings of Krug with Martin, since this would enable the practitioner of the primary reference to practice the advantage of controlling the flow of oil and refrigerant being displaced in the crankcase chamber.
In Reference to Claim 2
Martin mod. discloses:
a discharge line 22 fluidly coupled with the first cylinder head and operably receiving fluid discharged from the first cylinder head 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-12 and 14-19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Claims 20 are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “a second cylinder and a second piston disposed inside the second cylinder, the second piston operating in conjunction with the first piston.” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 3;
The prior art of record does not teach “a second piston reciprocally mounted inside a second cylinder, wherein the second cylinder is fluidly coupled with the interior chamber through a second piston port disposed in the second piston, and a one-way, second piston valve that is configured to merely allow fluid to flow from the crankcase chamber through the second piston into the second cylinder during a suction stroke. ” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 14; and
The prior art of record does not teach “a second piston reciprocally mounted inside a second cylinder, the second cylinder fluidly coupled with a second suction line that is fluidly coupled with the first discharge line, and comprising a second suction port valve that merely allows flow from the second suction line into the second cylinder. ” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 16.
The prior art of record does not teach “a second discharge line fluidly coupled with the second cylinder head, and comprising a second discharge port valve that merely allows flow from the second cylinder to the second discharge line.” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 18.
The prior art of record does not teach “a first discharge port fluidly coupling the inside of the first cylinder with a first cylinder head the first discharge port comprising a discharge valve that merely allows flow from the inside of the first cylinder to the cylinder head; a discharge line fluidly coupled with the first cylinder head and operably receiving fluid discharged from the first cylinder head; and a second cylinder and a second piston disposed inside the second cylinder, the second piston operating in conjunction with the first piston; and a second discharge line fluidly coupled with the second cylinder.” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 20.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks:
"The check valves 44 and 46 allow refrigerant to pass from the respective compressors as indicated by the arrows and are provided to prevent one compressor from forcing compressed refrigerant, oils, and other materials which may be in the refrigerant circuit into the discharge of the other compressor." Therefore, the Krug check valves are not located at the crankcase of the compressor, between the suction line (inlet) and crankcase, as claimed, and do not merely allow flow from the suction line into the crankcase, as is claimed. Thus, Krug does not teach these required claim features.”
Examiner Response:
Krug does disclose the check valves and having check valves within the ports allows increase controllability of flow within the compressor. Including the check valves wouldn’t destroy or limit the invention of Martin. As such the claim limitation would still be rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTHONY AYALA DELGADO whose telephone number is (571)270-3452. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Mark III Laurenzi can be reached on (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 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.
/ANTHONY AYALA DELGADO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights