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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “112a” (within Fig. 9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 14 should read “body, the inner diameter-variable flow path varying in an axial direction”
Claim 35, line 8 should read “introduced, the third core part having a different diameter”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 24-25, 28-30, & 40 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 24 recites “a second main inlet portion symmetrically arranged with respect to an imaginary line drawn based on the first main inlet portion”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the arrangement of the “imaginary line” is not made clear. In this case, it is not clear what is meant by “an imaginary line drawn based on the first main inlet portion”. This phrasing does not make clear the extent or direction of the recited “imaginary line”, nor does this phrasing define how the line must be arranged as it relates to the “first main inlet portion”. Furthermore, as far as the examiner understands, this “imaginary line” is not depicted within any of Applicant’s supplied figures, making it impossible to ascertain where this imaginary line is disposed or how it must extend within the invention. Therefore, for all of these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted the limitation in question as simply requiring the first and second main inlet portions to be arranged symmetrically.
Claim 25, line 2 recites “the second main inlet portion is symmetrically arranged left and right with respect to the first main inlet portion”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the arrangements of the “second main inlet portion” and “first main inlet portion” are not made clear. In this case, it is not clear what is meant by “symmetrically arranged left and right with respect to the first main inlet portion”. This phrasing does not make clear the particular arrangement of the recited symmetry, nor does this phrasing define how the symmetry must be arranged as it relates to the “first main inlet portion”. Applicant’s use of “left and right” further complicates the language, as such directions have not been defined in the claim. Furthermore, as far as the examiner understands, this “symmetrically arranged left and right” arrangement is not labeled or denoted within any of Applicant’s supplied figures, making it impossible to ascertain where this symmetry is disposed or how it must be arranged within the invention. Therefore, for all of these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted the limitation in question as simply requiring the first and second main inlet portions to be symmetrical.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the inner diameter-variable flow path is formed to slope outward towards a radius direction from a bottom to a top of the main body”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the phrasing “towards a radius direction” is not clearly defined. In this case, it is not at all clear what is meant by “towards a radius direction”. A “radius” is a well-defined geometric term meaning “a line segment extending from the center of a circle or sphere to the circumference or bounding surface”. However, the phrasing “radius direction” does not have a well-defined geometric meaning, and such a phrasing lacks any particular definition within Applicant’s specification. In this instance, it is not clear if “towards a radius direction” is requiring a radial extension direction along a particular radius or merely requiring any outward direction at all. Furthermore, as far as the examiner understands, this “towards a radius direction” arrangement is not labeled or denoted within any of Applicant’s supplied figures, making it impossible to ascertain what particular direction is being required in the invention. Therefore, for all of these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted the limitation in question as simply requiring the inner diameter-variable flow path to slope radially outward.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the core guiding portions further comprise: a first opening wall sloping towards a direction where an opening area of the inner diameter-variable flow path increases; and a second opening wall extending from an extended end of the first opening wall for a predetermined length towards an axial upper side and maintaining a constant opening cross-sectional area”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. At the outset, it is not clear what is meant by the phrasing “sloping towards a direction where an opening area of the inner diameter-variable flow path increases”. This language does not clearly define the particular “direction” being recited, and thus, it is not clear what particular slope structure is being required in the invention. Secondly, it is not clear what particular element is being defined by the phrase “an axial upper side”. In this instance, the “axial upper side” is not clearly linked to the second opening wall, the extended end, or the first opening wall, rendering the required arrangement of the invention unclear. Finally, it is not clear what element is being defined by the phrase “a constant opening cross-sectional area”. In this instance, there is no previously defined “opening” at all, and thus, it is not clear what “opening” structure is being defined (or introduced) in Claim 40. Therefore, for all of these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted Claim 40 as best understood when read in light of Figures 5-7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26-28, & 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,721,757 to Ginies et al.
In regards to independent Claim 21, and with aprticular reference to Figures 1-3, Ginies et al. (Ginies) discloses:
21. A scroll compressor (1; Fig. 1) comprising: a compression unit (6) coupled to one side of a driving unit (13, 14); a rear housing (3) further comprising a discharge chamber (5) where a refrigerant (“high-pressure refrigerant fluid”; col. 1, line 35) compressed in the compression unit is discharged and a passage (8; Figs. 1-2) formed with a flow path for the refrigerant to be expelled (“fluid is discharged from the high-pressure compartment 5 via an orifice 8 in cap 3”; col. 4, lines 25-28); and a discharge check valve (20; Figs. 2-3 show two different embodiments of the discharge check valve) installed in the passage (installation is best shown in Fig. 2) to supply the refrigerant to a discharge port (45) by varying an opening degree based on a pressure of the refrigerant (via elastic spring 26; Figs. 2-3), wherein the discharge check valve further comprises: a main body (21 alone or the combination of 21 & 23) connected to the passage (i.e. fluidly and mechanically, as shown best in Fig. 2) and further comprising a main inlet port (34) through which the refrigerant and an oil are introduced; a core unit (25) configured to move inside the main body based on the pressure of the refrigerant; and an inner diameter-variable flow path (40) formed by an inner diameter of the main body varying in an axial direction (the expanding and contracting shape of the flow path 40 is apparent in both Figs. 2 & 3).
In regards to Claim 22, Ginies discloses an inlet hole (33) connected to the discharge chamber through which the refrigerant is introduced (see Figs. 2-3, especially flow arrow 50 in Fig. 3), and the refrigerant moved through the inlet hole collides with the discharge check valve (see flow arrow 50 in Fig. 3), causing a portion of the oil to separate (this is a functional limitation that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense; Applicant should note that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). In the instant case, Ginies clearly discloses an inlet hole 33 providing compressed a refrigerant/oil mixture to the discharge valve 20 such that at least some portion of the oil will separate upon impacting valve core unit 25. Thus, Ginies discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed invention, and thus, is structurally capable of providing oil separation functionality, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 23, Ginies discloses an elastic member (26) configured to support the core unit (Figs. 2-3).
In regards to Claim 26, the inner diameter-variable flow path (40) further comprises an expansion section where an opening cross-sectional area increases as a differential pressure increases based on a movement of the core unit (expansion of flow path 40 is apparent in both Figs. 2 & 3).
In regards to Claim 27, the expansion section expends over a predetermined section (this is apparent in both Figs. 2 & 3; while the expansion section extent is much smaller in Fig. 2, the claim does not define any particular axial length of the predetermined section).
In regards to Claim 28, the inner diameter-variable flow path (40) is formed to slope outward towards a radius direction (radially outward expansion of flow path 40 is apparent in both Figs. 2 & 3) from a bottom (i.e. left in Figs. 2-3) to a top (i.e. right in Figs. 2-3) of the main body.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 35, the core unit (25) further comprises: a first core part (labeled by the examiner in Fig. 2 shown immediately above; the central, small diameter portion) extending axially with an outer diameter corresponding to (i.e. coaxial with) the inner diameter of the main body (Fig. 2) and having a core rib (29) formed on an outer surface thereof (apparent in Fig. 2); a second core part (27) integrally formed with the first core part (apparent in Fig. 2) and extending from a top (i.e. right) of the first core part where the refrigerant is discharged (Fig. 2); and a third core part (30) integrally formed with the first core part (apparent in Fig. 2) and extending from a bottom (i.e. left) of the first core part where the refrigerant is introduced (Fig. 2), with a different diameter (i.e. a different inner diameter) from the first core part (apparent in Fig. 2); wherein the main body (21, 23) further comprises core guiding portions (39 & 43) positioned facing each other on an inside of the main body (apparent in Figs. 2-3) to guide movement of the core unit (Figs. 2-3 clearly show that portions 43 & 39 guide/delimit axial and radial movement of the core unit 25), wherein the core guiding portions further comprise a first core guide (39) where the core rib is inserted (apparent in Figs. 2 & 3).
In regards to Claim 36, the core unit (25), before being actuated by the refrigerant, is positioned with a bottom surface (i.e. left end surface) of the third core part aligned (i.e. coaxially aligned) with a bottom surface (i.e. valve seat 22) of the main body (Figs. 2 & 3).
In regards to Claim 37, the core guiding portions (43, 39) further comprise a second core guide (43) formed adjacent to a guide groove (28) on the core guiding portions and partially in contact with an outer surface of the core unit to facilitate an axial movement of the main body (apparent in Figs. 2-3).
In regards to Claim 38, the second core guide (43) maintains a curvature corresponding to an outer curvature of the core unit (the guide groove 28 of core guiding portion 23 matches a curvature of the core unit portion 27; see Figs. 2-3).
In regards to Claim 39, the core guiding portions (43, 39) are arranged to intersect with the inner diameter-variable flow path (apparent in Figs. 2 & 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginies (applied above) in view of US 2010/0294972 to Park et al.
In regards to Claim 31, Ginies discloses the scroll compressor of claim 21,wherein the main body (21 alone; Fig. 2) has a cap (23) coupled to an upper end (i.e. right end) thereof (Fig. 2), and the cap further comprises cap openings (i.e. spaces formed between each pair of legs 49; “A plurality of leg members 48 connect the guiding portion 43 and the fixation portion 46 of the valve body, without overly disturbing the flow path of the discharge fluid”) formed along a circumferential direction on an upper surface (i.e. right end surface) to allow the refrigerant, which passes through the core unit, to move to the discharge port (col. 5, lines 21-34).
In regards to Claim 32, the cap (23) is formed with an outer diameter (at flange 47) larger than an outer diameter of the main body (i.e. the outer diameter of portion 22 of the main body 21) and is coupled to the passage (apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 33, the cap (23) further comprises: a rib (43) formed at a center of the upper surface (Fig. 2); and a bridge (any one of legs 48) formed to compartmentalize between the cap openings based on the rib (“A plurality of leg members 48 connect the guiding portion 43 and the fixation portion 46 of the valve body, without overly disturbing the flow path of the discharge fluid”).
In regards to Claim 34, the bridge (48) overlaps at least partially with the inner diameter-variable flow path (40) in the axial direction (apparent in Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-25, 29-30, & 40 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best available prior art fails to disclose the scroll compressor of claim 21, wherein the main inlet port further comprises: a first main inlet portion temporarily maintained in a closed state by the core unit before the core unit moves to an upper part of the main body, and a second main inlet portion symmetrically arranged with respect to an imaginary line drawn based on the first main inlet portion, remaining constantly open, as recited in Claim 24. While Ginies et al. is considered to be the most relevant prior art document, Ginies is silent towards first and second main inlet portions, wherein the second main inlet potion is symmetrically arranged with respect to an imaginary line drawn based on the first main inlet portion and remains constantly open.
Additionally, the best available prior art fails to disclose the scroll compressor of claim 39, wherein the core guiding portions further comprise: a first opening wall sloping towards a direction where an opening area of the inner diameter-variable flow path increases; and a second opening wall extending from an extended end of the first opening wall for a predetermined length towards an axial upper side and maintaining a constant opening cross-sectional area. While Ginies et al. is considered to be the most relevant prior art document, Ginies is silent towards the core guiding portions further having a first opening wall and a second opening wall as specifically claimed within Claim 40.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please also see US 2013/0071266 to Adaniya, US 2002/0012595 to Kouno et al., US 6,227,830 to Fields et al., and US 6,132,191 to Hugenroth et al., each of which discloses a spring-loaded check valve device for a scroll compressor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights