CTNF 19/018,632 CTNF 89375 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 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 Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites the limitations “a pressure […] in the degassing vessel”, and “a pressure […] in the first output pipeline”. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, which recites similar limitations based on “a pressure in the degassing vessel”, and “a pressure in the first output pipeline”. It is unclear if claim 6 was intended to further limit the control of claim 5 or if claim 6 was intended to depend from claim 3. It appears that the latter was intended. 07-34-01 Claims 7 and 9 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a pressure in the degassing vessel”. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 5, which recites “a pressure in the degassing vessel”. It is believed that claim 7 should recite “the pressure in the degassing vessel”. Claim 9 (see below) is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 7 and therefore includes the same error(s). 07-34-01 Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 recites the limitations “in response to any detection of the oil level sensor, the pressure sensor, and the temperature sensor”. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. To expedite prosecution, claim 9 has been interpreted as dependent on claim 7, which does provide appropriate antecedent basis. 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 (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. 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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishiyama (EP 3 722 701: cited by Applicant) . Regarding claim 1, Ishiyama shows a refrigeration system comprising: a compressor (see at least compressor #1); an oil separator (see at least oil separator #2) including an inlet (see at least i.e. “from 1”) in communication with an outlet of the compressor, a refrigerant gas outlet (see at least i.e. “to 3”), and a mixture outlet (see at least line with valve #11); an evaporator (see at least evaporator #5) including an inlet in communication with the refrigerant gas outlet of the oil separator and an outlet in communication with an inlet of the compressor (inherent to evaporator in a closed loop system); a degasser (see at least oil reservoir #6); an input pipeline (see at least pipe #21); and a first output pipeline (see at least pipe #22), wherein the degasser is in communication with the mixture outlet of the oil separator through the input pipeline (see at least via valve #11), and is in communication with the inlet of the compressor through the first output pipeline (inherent to degasser in a closed loop refrigeration system). Regarding claim 2, Ishiyama further shows wherein the input pipeline is provided with a first throttle valve (see at least valve #11), and the first output pipeline is provided with a second throttle valve (see at least valve #12). Regarding claim 8, Ishiyama further shows wherein the first output pipeline is connected to the outlet of the evaporator (see at least inherent to closed loop refrigeration system) . 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 (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. 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 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shanmugam et al. (US 2021/0348811) . Regarding claim 3, Ishiyama further discloses wherein the degasser includes a degassing vessel (see at least oil reservoir #6: vessel is required to act as reservoir). While Ishiyama further discloses a heater to heat oil separated by the separator (see at least paragraph [0016]), Ishiyama does not disclose a heater provided in the degassing vessel. Shanmugam et al. teaches another degasser with a heater provided in the degassing vessel (see at least liquid/vapor separator #118 with heater #116; paragraph [0068]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the vessel of Ishiyama with a heater provided in the degassing vessel, as taught by Shanmugam et al., to improve the vessel of Ishiyama by improving the efficiency of the gas/liquid separation in the vessel through increased temperature gradients. Regarding claim 4, Ishiyama further discloses further comprising: a second output pipeline (see at least pipe #23), wherein one end of the second output pipeline is connected to a bottom portion of the degassing vessel (#23 is at the bottom of #6), and the other end of the second output pipeline is connected to the compressor (inherent to output pipeline in a closed loop refrigeration system). Regarding claim 5, Ishiyama further discloses wherein the first throttle valve adjusts a flow rate in the input pipeline (see at least valve #11 is in pipe #21 and thus adjusts the flow in pipe #21), and the second throttle valve adjusts a flow rate in the first output pipeline (see at least valve #12 is in pipe #22 and thus adjusts the flow in pipe #22), such that a pressure in the degassing vessel is greater than a pressure in the first output pipeline (in view that the structure(s) correspond to those claimed, the system is considered capable of so acting; see MPEP 2114 II). Regarding claim 6, Ishiyama further discloses wherein the first throttle valve adjusts the flow rate in the input pipeline (see at least valve #11 is in pipe #21 and thus adjusts the flow in pipe #21), and the second throttle valve adjusts the flow rate in the first output pipeline (see at least valve #12 is in pipe #22 and thus adjusts the flow in pipe #22), such that a pressure P.sub.m in the degassing vessel, a pressure P.sub.s in the first output pipeline, and a pressure P.sub.d in the input pipeline satisfy the following relationship: Pm=Ps+n ⋆ (Pd-Ps), where n ∈ [0.1, 0.5] (in view that the structure(s) correspond to those claimed, the system is considered capable of so acting; see MPEP 2114 II). Regarding claim 7, Ishiyama further discloses wherein the degasser further includes an oil level sensor provided in the degassing vessel (see at least sensor #52 and/or #53). Ishiyama does not disclose a pressure sensor that measures a pressure in the degassing vessel, and a temperature sensor that measures an oil temperature in the degassing vessel. Shanmugam et al. further teaches a pressure sensor that measures a pressure in the degassing vessel (see at least pressure sensor #106 in vessel #118), and a temperature sensor that measures an oil temperature in the degassing vessel (see at least temperature sensor #108). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ishiyama with a pressure sensor that measures a pressure in the degassing vessel, and a temperature sensor that measures an oil temperature in the degassing vessel, as taught by Shanmugam et al., to improve the system of Ishiyama by allowing for system control according to level, pressure, and/or temperature (see at least Shanmugam et al. paragraph [0068]). Regarding claim 9, Ishiyama further discloses wherein the first throttle valve and the second throttle valve operate in response to any detection result of the oil level sensor, the pressure sensor, and the temperature sensor (see at least paragraph [0057]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern. 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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. /TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 19/018,632 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 19/018,632 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 19/018,632 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 19/018,632 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 19/018,632 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights