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 § 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) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kosho et al. (JP 2013/036442).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Kosh, Figures 9-10 and 12-13)
Kosho et al. (Kosh) discloses:
A hermetic compressor comprising:
a cylinder (81) including a compression chamber (85) and an injection hole (72), refrigerant being compressed in the compression chamber (85), the injection hole (71,72) constituting a portion of an injection flow passage (120,71,72) through which the refrigerant is supplied into the compression chamber (See Kosh, Paragraph [0127]);
closing parts (83,84) fixed to both end surfaces of the cylinder (81) in a height direction to close the compression chamber (85);
a discharge valve (88a) formed in a closing part (83) of the closing parts (83,84) that is fixed to one end surface of both end surfaces of the cylinder (81), the discharge valve (88a) being configured to open and close a discharge port (81b) through which the refrigerant compressed is discharged to an outside of the compression chamber (85) (See Kosh, Paragraph [0126]); and
an injection check valve (73,76) configured to open and close the injection hole (71,72), wherein the discharge valve (88a) and the injection check valve (73,76) are respectively fixed to the closing part (83) of the closing parts (83,84) that is fixed to the one end surface of both end surfaces of the cylinder (81) and another end surface of both end surfaces of the cylinder (81), and
the discharge valve (88a) and the injection check valve (73,76) are disposed at positions that at least partially overlap with each other when the discharge valve (88a) and the injection check valve (73,76) are projected on a same plane in the height direction of the cylinder (81). (See Kosh, Paragraphs [0126] & [0129]).
The Examiner notes that the claim recitations merely require an overlap “when projected on a same plane in the height direction” thus the claim recitations merely require an arbitrary plane exist in a height direction in which projections (such as perspective projections) of the valves onto said plane will partially overlap. Accordingly, projections of both valves can partially overlap on a same vertical plane from multiple perspective projection points onto a same plane in a height direction.
In Reference to Claim 4
(See Kosh, Figures 9-10 and 12-13)
Kosh discloses:
A refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising the hermetic compressor of claim 1. (See Kosh, Paragraph [0116] w/respect to refrigeration cycle & claim 1 rejection above).
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.
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) 2-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosho et al. (JP 2013/036442).
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Kosh, Figures 9-10 and 12-13)
Kosh discloses:
wherein the injection hole (71,72) includes an injection lateral hole (71) extending in a radial direction of the cylinder (81), and an injection vertical hole (72) extending in the height direction of the cylinder (81), a distal end hole (i.e.-seat hole for spring 76) formed on an outer side of the injection lateral hole (71) in the radial direction, and the injection vertical hole (72) is in communication with the distal end hole (seat hole for spring 76).
Kosh discloses the claimed invention except:
The distal end hole having a conical shape.
Even though Kosh does not disclose the distal end hole having the specified shape (i.e.-conical), this shape would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as a matter of design choice, absent criticality or unexpected results. Since there is no demonstrated motivation or reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to the above features having the specified conical shape, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have chosen from various shapes based on suitability for the intended results. See MPEP § 2144.04.
In Reference to Claim 3
(See Kosh, Figures 10 and 13 as annotated by Examiner below)
Kosh discloses:
wherein each of the injection check valve (73,76) and the discharge valve (88a) has a long shape, and a length (A) of the injection check valve (73,76) in a longitudinal direction is shorter than a length (B) of the discharge valve (88a) in the longitudinal direction, and a diameter (C) of a head part of the injection check valve (73,76) is smaller than a diameter (B) of a head part of the discharge valve (88a).
The Examiner notes that the claims merely require “a length”, “a diameter”, and “a longitudinal direction” and thus a length of the injection check valve will be shorter than a chosen length of the discharge valve. Additionally, the claims do not require the diameter of the valves be taken in a different direction and thus the length and diameter of the discharge valve is generally denoted as (B).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
932
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 5
(See Kosh, Figures 9-10 and 12-13)
Kosh discloses:
A refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising the hermetic compressor of claim 2. (See Kosh, Paragraph [0116] w/respect to refrigeration cycle & claim 2 rejection above).
In Reference to Claim 6
(See Kosh, Figures 9-10 and 12-13)
Kosh discloses:
A refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising the hermetic compressor of claim 3. (See Kosh, Paragraph [0116] w/respect to refrigeration cycle & claim 3 rejection above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tadano, Sasaki, Atobe, Yu, and Takuya show hermetic compressor devices within the general state of the art of invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
