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 .
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 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,291,082. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited claims include all features of the instant claims.
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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spies et al (US 2022/0307500) in view of Kagawa et al (US 11,097,592).
Regarding claim 1, Spies discloses (a plurality of embodiments of Spies are applied here at claim 1, refer to figures 4 and 10-12 unless otherwise noted) a compression module (33) for a vehicle, the compression module comprising:
a compression unit (27 and alternatively being further inclusive of central housing 22 and motor housing 20) configured to compress a refrigerant introduced into the compression unit;
a controller (either or both of inverter 23 and motor 20) having a first surface separably assembled to the compression unit to control the compression unit; and
an accumulator unit (“refrigerant collector” 15 alone or with inner heat exchanger 1) separably mounted on a second surface of the controller in a direction opposite to the compression unit, the accumulator unit being configured to supply the refrigerant to the compression unit in a gaseous state.
Spies discloses connection between said units (for example see seals 12 at figures 16-19) but lacks specific connection means such as the mounting guiders/grooves and protrusions forming a slidable connection. Kagawa discloses mounting guiders (32) of a compressor unit (10) protruding toward the control unit (30) to define mounting grooves in one surface (the recesses about the guiders form grooves) on which the control unit is mounted; the control unit comprises mounting protrusions (33) corresponding to the mounting guiders; wherein the protrusions are slidably coupled to the mounting grooves (the action of installing 33 onto 32 includes sliding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Spies with guiders and protrusions as is taught by Kagawa in order to index the parts relative to each other aiding correct assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Spies discloses the accumulator unit (15) has a heat exchange unit (1) provided on one surface that is in close contact with the controller (20). The examiner notes further that the breadth of “heat exchange unit” allows for any element of the accumulator unit to read thereon. The universe tends towards homogeneity as dictated by the second law of thermodynamics; heat from the controller is passed to the accumulator unit, necessarily.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spies et al (US 2022/0307500), in view of Kagawa et al (US 11,097,592), and in view of Imura et al (US 2017/0127566).
Regarding claim 2, Spies discloses the compression module of claim 1, but lacks heat dissipation plates between the respective units. Imura discloses a compressor module including a compression unit and control unit and further providing a heat dissipation plate (13, 31, or 32) so that the control unit is cooled by the refrigerant passing through the compression unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Spies with the heat dissipation plates at both sides of the control unit in order to dissipate heat from the control unit thereby preventing damage due to overheating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 as well as overcoming the double patenting rejection discussed above.
Claims 5-9 depend from claim 4.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Spies et al (US 2022/0307500), Kagawa et al (US 11,097,592), and Imura et al (US 2017/0127566) are regarded as the closest prior art of record. The references as laid out above provide for heat exchange between an accumulator and a control unit, however; they lack, whether alone or in combination with any other known reference, the heat exchange unit as described.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rech et al (US 10,700,471) connection means for electronic controller
Inoue (US 9,851,131) compressor connection
Nacewicz et al (US 5,170,307) mounting apparatus for controller
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
