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 § 112
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.
Claims 6-7, 10, and 14 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 6 recites “a second threshold pressure difference” but does not recite a “first” threshold pressure difference, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Note that while claim 5 does recite a “first threshold pressure difference,” claim 6 does not depend from claim 5 and thus does not incorporate that limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second threshold pressure difference”" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that while claim 6 recites “a second threshold pressure difference,” claim 7 does not depend from claim 6 and thus does not incorporate that limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first threshold pressure difference”" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that while claim 5 recites “a first threshold pressure difference,” claim 7 does not depend from claim 5 and thus does not incorporate that limitation.
Similarly:
Claim 10 recites “a second threshold pressure difference” but does not recite a “first” threshold pressure difference, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Note that while claim 9 does recite a “first threshold pressure difference,” claim 10 does not depend from claim 9 and thus does not incorporate that limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second threshold pressure difference”" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that while claim 10 recites “a second threshold pressure difference,” claim 14 does not depend from claim 10 and thus does not incorporate that limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first threshold pressure difference”" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that while claim 9 recites “a first threshold pressure difference,” claim 14 does not depend from claim 9 and thus does not incorporate that limitation.\
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, and 14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Muller et al. (US 2020/0370801 A1).
As per claim 1, Muller et al. disclose a lubricant management system for a Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration (HVACR) system, the lubricant management system comprising:
a compressor 4 including a plurality of lubricant inlet ports (at 180a, 186a, 184a) and a plurality of lubricant outlet ports (24, 27);
a first set of orifices comprising:
a first orifice adapted to receive lubricant via a first passageway 180 (orifice at the intersection of 18 and 180);
a second orifice (orifice at the intersection of 18 and 182) adapted to receive the lubricant via a flow regulating valve 20 disposed in a second passageway 182, wherein the first passageway and the second passageway are fluidly connected (at 18);
a second set of orifices (at 180a, 186a, 184a) adapted to receive the lubricant supplied by the first passageway 180 and the second passageway 182, the second set of orifices adapted to supply the received lubricant to each of the lubricant inlet ports of the compressor 4 (Fig. 2; etc.),
wherein the flow regulating valve is adapted to open to supply the lubricant based on the pressure difference between a first pressure region P1 and a second pressure region P3 of the HVACR system (para. 0031; etc.).
As pe claim 3, Muller et al. disclose wherein the first pressure P1 region is a region upstream of the first set of orifices and the flow regulating valve (Fig. 2).
As per claim 5, Muller et al. disclose wherein the flow regulating valve is adapted to open to supply the lubricant based on the pressure difference between the first pressure region and the second pressure region of the HVACR system exceeding a first threshold pressure difference (paras. 0031-0037; etc.).
As per claim 6, Muller et al. disclose wherein the flow regulating valve is adapted to open to supply the lubricant based on the pressure difference between the first pressure region and the second pressure region of the HVACR system falling below a second threshold pressure difference (paras. 0031-0037; etc.).
As per claim 7, Muller et al. disclose wherein the flow regulating valve is adapted to close based on the pressure difference between the first pressure region and the second pressure region of the HVACR system ranging between the second threshold pressure difference and the first threshold pressure difference (paras. 0031-0037; etc.).
As per claim 8, Muller et al. disclose a method for optimizing supply of a lubricant to a compressor of a Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration (HVACR) system, the method comprising: providing a lubricant management system comprising a compressor 4, a first set of orifices (at intersection of 18 and 180 and intersection of 18 and 182), a second set of orifices (at 180a,186a, 184a), and a flow regulating valve 20; and selectively actuating the flow regulating valve to open to supply lubricant based on the pressure difference between a first pressure region P1 and a second pressure region P3 of the HVACR system (paras. 0031-0037; etc.).
As per claim 9, Muller et al. disclose wherein selectively actuating the flow regulating valve to open to supply the lubricant comprises: determining whether the pressure difference between the first pressure region and the second pressure region of the HVACR system exceeds a first threshold pressure difference; and actuating the flow regulating valve to supply the lubricant (paras. 0031-0037; etc.).
As per claim 10, Muller et al. disclose wherein selectively actuating the flow regulating valve to open to supply the lubricant comprises: determining whether the pressure difference between the first pressure region and the second pressure region of the HVACR system falls below a second threshold pressure difference; and actuating the flow regulating valve to supply the lubricant (paras. 0031-0037; etc.).
As per claim 11, Muller et al. disclose wherein the first pressure region is a region upstream of the first set of orifices and the flow regulating valve (Fig. 2).
As per claim 14, wherein the flow regulating valve is adapted to close based on the pressure difference between the first pressure region and the second pressure region of the HVACR system ranging between the second threshold pressure difference and the first threshold pressure difference (paras. 0031-0037; etc.).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al..
As per claims 2 and 13, Muller et al. do not teach wherein the opening of the second orifice is greater than the opening of the first orifice. However, the relative sizing of components is considered a simple mechanical expedient arrived at through routine experimentation that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing respective flow volumes.
As per claims 4 and 12, Muller et al. does not disclose wherein the second pressure region P3 is a region downstream of each of the second set of orifices (Fig. 2). However, the orifice connections of Muller et al. are simply connection points and do not themselves affect the pressure of the fluid. As such, it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application involving a simple rearrangement of existing parts to move the pressure sensor P3 to a position downstream of the orifices without affecting the detected pressure value or the basic functioning of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights