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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because step 702 in Fig. 7 is worded unclearly. It is presumed that step 702 is intended to recite “Measure the mass flow rate of oil based on levels of oil in an accumulator connected to a suction line.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phrase “are provided”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0029] of the specification recites “value” but should instead read “valve”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,173,941. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the issued claims anticipate the limitations of the claims in the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, at line 3, recites “configured connect” but should instead read “configured to connect”.
Claim 1, at line 4, recites “vaper” but should instead read “vapor”.
Claim 1, at line 11, recites “configured open” but should instead read “configured to open”.
Claim 1, at line 13, recites “at upper” but should instead read “at an upper”.
Claim 1, at line 14, recites “into oil” but should instead read “into the oil”.
Claims 2-8 are objected to due to dependence from claim 1.
Claim 9, at line 2, recite “An accumulator” but should instead read “an accumulator”.
Claims 11-16 are objected to due to dependence from claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 6,314,750) in view of Toyoshima (US 5,887,444).
As to claims 1, 5, 9, and 13, Ishikawa teaches an accumulator in a vapor compression cycle system comprising:
a shell defining an internal cavity (Fig. 17);
an inlet line to the internal cavity, the inlet line configured to connect to a first suction line of the vapor compression system and eject vapor and oil into the internal cavity (Figs. 1 and 17);
an outlet line 25 having a vapor inlet 25a, an oil inlet 25b, and an outlet which extends out of the shell and is configured to connect to a second suction line (Figs. 1 and 17); and
a level sensor 39 disposed in the internal cavity comprising a high-level switch 39b and a low-level switch 39a (Fig. 17).
Ishikawa does not explicitly teach a valve and associated control as claimed. However, Ishikawa does teach controlling system operations to maintain the oil level between the switches 39a-b (col. 14, lines 16-54). Additionally, Toyoshima teaches using a valve 22 to manage oil return through holes in a return pipe of an accumulator (Figs. 1-2; col. 4, lines 45-55). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ishikawa to incorporate a valve and associated control as claimed and taught by Toyoshima in order to further enable the system to accurately maintain desired oil levels.
As to claims 2-3 and 10-11, Ishikawa teaches the vapor inlet 25a proximate to the top of the cavity, the oil inlet 25b proximate the bottom of the cavity, and the outlet extends through a top end of the shell (Fig. 17).
As to claims 4 and 12, Toyoshima teaches a filter 23 upstream of the vapor inlet (Fig. 2).
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa and Toyoshima as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of Gregory (US 4,942,743).
As to claims 6-7 and 14-15, Ishikawa does not explicitly teach plurality of perforations and a shroud as claimed. However, Gregory teaches using an accumulator with a shrouded inlet tube 60 having perforations 61 which facilitate vaporization of liquid refrigerant (Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 27-35). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ishikawa to incorporate a perforated shrouded inlet as claimed and taught by Gregory in order to further separate oil and refrigerant.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa and Toyoshima as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of Kozinksi (US 6,701,745).
As to claims 8 and 16, Ishikawa does not explicitly teach a baffle as claimed. However, Kozinski teaches that it is known to utilize a baffle to prevent too much liquid bleed from an accumulator (col. 2, lines 37-45). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the accumulator of Ishikawa to incorporate a baffle as claimed in order to further control the liquid flow from the accumulator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights