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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 26th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-3 (amended) and 6-13 (new) remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 10th, 2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakashita et al. (US 2018/0178624 A1) in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al. (US 2016/0311290 A1) and Klotten et al. (US 2009/0152032 A1). For clarity, bold words below indicate claim language and, for claims 1-3, underlined words indicate amended (and new) matter.
[Claim 1] Sakashita et al. teaches: A mounting structure for an accumulator (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, elements 33 and 35 show the accumulator and various parts of the mounting structure; Abstract), the mounting structure comprising:
an accumulator (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, element 33) incorporated in an in-vehicle air conditioner (Sakashita et al., Fig. 1-3; paragraph [0030-0031]), the accumulator being configured to separate a refrigerant into a gaseous refrigerant and a liquid refrigerant (Sakashita et al., paragraph [0003]); and
two or more brackets (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, elements 35A and 35B) that mount the accumulator to a fixing member (Sakashita et al., Fig. 4, elements 3, 35A, and 35B show the accumulator and brackets attached to the body of the vehicle; paragraph [0061]), wherein the two or more brackets include:
an annular bracket (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3 elements 35Aa and 35Ba) that surrounds the accumulator in a circumferential direction (Sakashita et al., paragraph [0062]), and
a shaft-side bracket (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, element 35Ab), a first end of the shaft-side bracket (Sakashita et al., annotated in Fig. 3 below) being coupled to the annular bracket (Sakashita et al., paragraph [0062]), a second end of the shaft-side bracket (Sakashita et al., annotated in Fig. 3 below) being placed on an axial end face of the accumulator (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, elements 33, 33b, and 35Ab; paragraph [0062]), and the shaft-side bracket extending from the annular bracket downward in an axial direction of the accumulator (Sakashita et al., annotated Fig. 3 below shows that the first end is above the second end), and then extending radially inward in the radial direction (Sakashita et al., annotated Fig. 3 below shows the shaft-side bracket curves under the accumulator, with the second end closer to the center of the base of the accumulator) toward the axial end face of the accumulator (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, element 33b).
Although Sakashita et al. teaches that the accumulator separates refrigerant into gaseous refrigerant and liquid refrigerants (Sakashita et al., paragraph [0003]), it does not teach refrigerant mainly containing CO2. However, Gonzalez Rechea et al. teaches “a fastening arrangement for a cylindrical component, e.g. an accumulator in a mobile air-conditioning system, on a body of a motor vehicle.” (Gonzalez Rechea et al., paragraph [0002]). Specifically, Gonzalez Rechea et al. teaches a fastening arrangement that can withstand the high thermal pressure, and weight loads of CO2 refrigerants used in accumulator(s) incorporated in in-vehicle air conditioner(s) (Gonzalez Rechea et al.,
PNG
media_image1.png
673
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
paragraph [0003]).
Further, while Sakashita et al. does teach an end of the shaft-side bracket being placed on an axial end face of the accumulator (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, elements 33, 33b, and 35Ab; paragraph [0062]), it does not teach that an end of the shaft-side bracket is coupled to that axial end face. Conversely, Gonzales Rechea et al. teaches a bracket that comprises an annular portion (Gonzales Rechea et al., Fig. 4, elements 2, 6, 13, and 14 shows a U-shaped mount with arms holding the outside of an accumulator; paragraph [0026]) and shaft-side portion (Gonzales Rechea et al., Fig. 4, elements 5 and 25 show a straight portion of the mount that connects to a vehicle body; paragraph [0029]), wherein an end of the shaft-side bracket is placed on and coupled to an axial end of the accumulator (Gonzales Rechea et al., Fig. 1 and 2, elements 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 show a head, 7, off of the shaft-side bracket, 5, that rests on the top of the accumulator, 2, so that holes 8 and 11 line up to accept fastening element 12; paragraph [0025]).
Lastly, neither Sakashita et al. nor Gonzales Rechea et al. teach that the shaft-side bracket extends from the annular bracket radially outward in a radial direction of the accumulator. Klotten et al. teaches “an attachment device … [for] an accumulator… for use in mobile air conditioning systems with CO2 coolant on the body of a motor vehicle” (Klotten et al., Abstract). More specifically, Klotten teaches a mounting structure for an accumulator (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 12) comprising an accumulator (Klotten et al., Fig. 1, element 2), an annular bracket (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 23) and a shaft-side bracket (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 13), a first end of the shaft-side bracket being coupled to the annular bracket (Klotten et al., paragraph [0023]) and the shaft-side bracket extending from the annular bracket radially outward in a radial direction of the accumulator (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 31), then extending in an axial direction of the accumulator (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 32), and then extending radially inward in the radial direction (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 33).
Sakashita et al., Gonzalez Rechea et al., and Klotten et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of mounting accumulators in in-vehicle air conditioning systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting structure of Sakashita et al. to include the accumulator of Gonzalez Rechea et al., so that the mounting structure comprised an accumulator being configured to separate a refrigerant mainly containing CO2 into a gaseous refrigerant and a liquid refrigerant. This modification would be advantageous as CO2 refrigerant is more ecologically-friendly than other refrigerants. It would have been additionally obvious to modify the shaft-side bracket of Sakashita et al. to include the fastening configuration of Gonzalez Rechea et al. and shape of Klotten et al., so that a first end of the shaft-side bracket being coupled to the annular bracket, a second end of the shaft-side bracket being placed on and coupled to an axial end face of the accumulator, and the shaft-side bracket extending from the annular bracket radially outward in a radial direction of the accumulator, then extending downward in an axial direction of the accumulator, and then extending radially inward in the radial direction toward the axial end face of the accumulator. This modification would better secure the accumulator to the vehicle, increasing the security of the accumulator and decreasing the likelihood that the accumulator would be dislodged due to pipe rupture or vehicle collision.
[Claim 2] Sakashita et al. in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al. and Klotten et al. teaches: The mounting structure according to claim 1. Klotten et al. further teaches that the two or more brackets include two annular brackets (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, elements 37 and 23) spaced apart from each other in the axial direction of the accumulator (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 15).
[Claim 3] Sakashita et al. in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al. and Klotten et al. teaches: The mounting structure according to claim 1, wherein the first end of the shaft-side bracket is integrally connected to the annular bracket (Sakashita et al., paragraph [0062]).
[Claim 6] Sakashita et al. in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al. and Klotten et al. teaches: The mounting structure according to claim 1, wherein the axial end face is a bottom surface (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, element 33b) of the accumulator.
[Claim 7] Sakashita et al. in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al. and Klotten et al. teaches: The mounting structure according to claim 6, wherein the second end of the shaft-side bracket is on to the bottom surface of the accumulator (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, element 33b). Gonzalez Rechea et al. further teaches that an end of the shaft side bracket can be coupled to an axial end face of the accumulator by means of a fastening element (Gonzalez Rechea et al., Fig. 1, element 12). Klotten et al. further teaches that a bolt (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 28) can be used to attach the shaft-side bracket to attach to a surface.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gonzalez Rechea et al. and Klotten et al. to add a bolt to the mounting structure of Sakashita et al. such that the second end of the shaft side bracket was coupled to the bottom surface of the accumulator.
[Claim 12] Sakashita et al. in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al. and Klotten et al. teaches: The mounting structure according to claim 2. Klotten et al. further teaches that the two annular brackets include an upper annular bracket (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 37) and a lower annular bracket (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 23), and the first end of the shaft-side bracket (Klotten et al., Fig. 3, element 31) is coupled to the lower annular bracket (Klotten et al., paragraph [0023]).
[Claim 13] Sakashita et al. in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al. and Klotten et al. teaches: The mounting structure according to claim 1, wherein the second end of the shaft-side bracket (Sakashita et al., annotated in Fig. 3 above) has a surface that faces the axial end face of the accumulator in the axial direction of the accumulator (Sakashita et al., Fig. 3, element 35Ab curves so that the bracket is flush against the bottom of the accumulator 33b).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakashita et al. (US 2018/0178624 A1) in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al. (US 2016/0311290 A1) and Klotten et al. (US 2009/0152032 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gittleman (US 4,417,755). For clarity, bold words below indicate claim language.
[Claim 8] Sakashita et al. in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al. and Klotten et al. teaches: the mounting structure according to claim 1, but do not teach that the annular bracket includes two half rings. Gittleman teaches a coupling bracket for holding a pipe (Gittleman, Abstract) that comprises an annular bracket (Gittleman, Fig. 1 and 2) including two half rings (Gittleman, Fig. 2, elements 18 and 19) that sandwich a cylinder (Gittleman, Fig. 1, elements 10 and 11 or Fig. 2, element 64), the two half rings being fastened together by a bolt (Gittleman, Fig. 2, elements 26 and 27).
Gittleman is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it solves the same problem of securing around a cylindrical object. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the annular bracket of Sakashita et al. (or Klotten et al.) so that it comprises two half rings fastened together by a bolt, as taught by Gittleman. This modification would be advantageous, as it would ensure a tight connection between the annular bracket and the accumulator, preventing movement or shifting of the accumulator.
[Claim 9] Sakashita et al. in view of Gonzalez Rechea et al., Klotten et al., and Gittleman teaches: the mounting structure according to claim 8. Gittleman further teaches that each of the two half rings includes an upper flange extending radially outward in the radial direction (Gittleman, Fig. 1 and 2, element 42) and a lower flange extending radially outward in the radial direction (Gittleman, Fig. 1 and 2, element 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are 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. For clarity, bold text below indicates claim language.
[Claim 10] While Sakashita et al. teaches that the first end of the shaft-side bracket is coupled to the one of the two half rings, none of the prior art made of record teaches that the shaft side bracket is coupled to the lower flange of one of the two half rings (underline added by Examiner for emphasis).
[Claim 11] Similarly, while Gonzalez Rechea et al. and Klotten et al. teach that a mounting portion is connected to one of the two half rings and coupled to the fixing member, none of the prior art made of record teaches that a mounting portion is connected to upper flange of one of the two half rings (underline added by Examiner for emphasis).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 of Applicant’s Response, filed 8/26/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees that Sakashita et al. and Gonzalez Rechea et al. do not teach all the elements of amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Klotten et al., which, in combination with Sakashita et al. and Gonzalez Rechea et al., teaches the limitations that were added to amended claim 1, leading to a new rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Based on these new rejections, and the addition of Gittleman, claims 6-9 and 12-13 are also rejected. The Examiner has determined claims 10 and 11 to include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wolvin (US 7, 588,223 B2) teaches a clamp with a portion extending outward, downwards, and then inward.
Hsu (US 7,111,965 B2) teaches a lamp clamp that has an annular bracket that attaches to the lamp connected to a c-clamp plate that attaches to a surface.
Beardsley (US 1,799,944) teaches an annular bracket with an upper flange that connects to a surface
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 Emily M Culley whose telephone number is 571-270-0560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/EMC/Examiner,
Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights