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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species M (Figure 27) in the reply filed on June 9th, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 21-25 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 9th, 2026.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, & 14-18 will be examined.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 the limitation “the recess”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which recess is being referred back to by this language. In this case, it is not clear whether “the recess” is 1) attempting to refer back to the “recess” recited in Claim 1 or 2) attempting to refer back to the “recess” recited in Claim 4. As far as the examiner understands the invention, it appears most likely that Applicant intended for the second interpretation to be applied, but the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim scope cannot be determined. Therefore, for examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the second interpretation.
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) 1-8 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0032924 to Stover.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-9, Stover specifically discloses:
1. A compressor (10; Fig. 1) comprising: a first scroll (100) having a first end plate (104) and a first spiral wrap (106) extending from the first end plate; a second scroll (102) having a second end plate (116, 52) and a second spiral wrap (118) extending from the second end plate, wherein the first and second spiral wraps cooperate to define a plurality of fluid pockets (124-134), and wherein during operation of the compressor, the fluid pockets move from a radially outer position (124) to radially intermediate positions (126-132) to a radially inner position (134); and a capacity-modulation system (28, 30) operable in a high-capacity mode (“full-capacity mode”; para. 72) and a low-capacity mode (“third level of capacity modulation”; para. 72), wherein: the second end plate defines a suction inlet (“a suction pressure region of the compressor 10”; para. 74; see also “an inlet pocket 124”; para. 59), a discharge passage (136), a modulation port (154), and a vent passage (160), the modulation port communicates with one of the fluid pockets (126-132) at one of the radially intermediate positions (para. 62), and the vent passage extends from and is in direct communication with the suction inlet defined by the second scroll (paras. 66, 74); the capacity-modulation system includes a control valve (164; Fig. 2; see also 380 in Figs. 8-9) and a piston (170; Fig. 2; see also 370 in Figs. 8-9), the control valve is movable between a first position and a second position (apparent in Figs. 3-4), the piston is disposed within a recess (150; Fig. 2; see also 350 in Figs. 8-9) in the second end plate, the vent passage extends from the recess to the suction inlet (“vented to a suction pressure region of compressor 10 through second radial passage 160”; para. 74), the piston is movable in the recess between an open position in which fluid communication between the modulation port and the vent passage is allowed (Fig. 4; see also Fig. 9) and a closed position in which fluid communication between the modulation port and the vent passage is prevented (Figs. 2-3; see also Fig. 8), and movement of the control valve to the first position causes movement of the piston to the closed position (Figs. 2-3; see also Fig. 9; paras. 65-66), and movement of the control valve to the second position causes movement of the piston to the open position (Fig. 4; see also Fig. 8; paras. 65-66).
In regards to Claim 2, the second end plate includes another modulation port (156) that communicates with another one of the fluid pockets (132) at another one of the radially intermediate positions (Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 3, the piston blocks both of the modulation ports in the closed position and opens both of the modulation ports in the open position (apparent in Figs. 2-4 & 8-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
1028
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 4, the piston (170) includes a recess (Fig. 2 immediately above, annotated by the examiner for clarity) formed in an axially-facing surface of the piston (apparent in Fig. 2), wherein the axially-facing surface sealingly contacts a surface of the non-orbiting scroll when the piston is in the closed position (apparent in Figs. 2-3).
In regards to Claim 5, the recess in the piston is vented to (i.e. in fluid communication with) the vent passage (160) (apparent in Fig. 4).
In regards to Claim 6, a spring (168) is disposed within the recess (Figs. 2-4; para. 64).
In regards to Claim 7, when the control valve is in the first position (Figs. 2-3), the control valve (164) allows intermediate-pressure working fluid to flow to an actuation chamber (176) defined by the piston and the second end plate (Figs. 2-3; para. 65), when the control valve is in the second position (Fig. 4), the control valve prevents intermediate-pressure working fluid from flowing to the actuation chamber (Fig. 4; para. 66), and the intermediate-pressure working fluid is at a pressure higher than a suction pressure and less than a discharge pressure (para. 65).
In regards to Claim 8, when the control valve is in the first position (Figs. 2-3), the intermediate-pressure working fluid flows from an axial biasing chamber (148), through the control valve to the actuation chamber via a passage (158, 182) in the second end plate (Figs. 2-3), and the axial biasing chamber is defined by the second end plate (Figs. 2-4) and a floating seal assembly (20; Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 10, the second end plate (116, 52) includes a first portion (52; Fig. 1) and a second portion (116; Fig. 1) that is attached to the first portion by fasteners (54; Fig. 1), and wherein the second portion (116) defines a closed end of the actuation chamber (Figs. 2-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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 inventions as recited in Claim 11. The best available prior art references are as follows:
1. US 2016/0032924 to Stover (applied above)
2. US 8,840,384 to Patel et al.
3. US 2009/1096781 to Kiem et al.
4. JP 6570756 to Taiki
5. US 2023/0296097 to Bercot et al.
Stover (applied above) is considered to be the most relevant prior art reference available, and has been thoroughly detailed above. However, Stover fails to disclose the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the control valve includes a body, a housing, and a valve member, the body is received in a valve passage in the second end plate, the body includes a first passage, a second passage, and a third passage, the housing is fixed relative to the second end plate and the body, and the valve member is disposed within the housing and is movable therein between the first and second positions, as claimed. Stover lacks any and all disclosure of a control valve having a body, housing, and valve member structured as particularly recited in Claim 11.
Patel provides another relevant prior art reference, and discloses a scroll compressor assembly (20; Fig. 1) a first scroll (22) having a first end plate and a first spiral wrap extending from the first end plate (Fig. 1); a second scroll (24) having a second end plate and a second spiral wrap extending from the second end plate (Fig. 1), wherein the first and second spiral wraps cooperate to define a plurality of fluid pockets (26); and a control valve (44) including a body (54), a housing (46), and a valve member (52), wherein: the body is fixedly received in a valve passage (42) in the second end plate and sealingly engages a first portion of the valve passage (Fig. 1), the body includes a first passage (i.e. the internal passage containing valve member 52), the housing is fixed relative to the second end plate (Fig. 1), the valve member includes a stem portion that is movably received in the first passage of the body (Fig. 1). However, Patel is silent as it relates to the body having a second passage and a third passage, the housing includes an aperture that is open to a suction chamber of the compressor, the valve member is disposed within the housing and is movable therein between first and second positions. Thus, Patel falls far short of remedying the failing in Stover and of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s recited invention.
Kiem discloses another similarly relevant prior art reference and likewise discloses a scroll compressor assembly (10; Fig. 1) having a first scroll (40) having a first end plate and a first spiral wrap extending from the first end plate (Fig. 1); a second scroll (30) having a second end plate and a second spiral wrap extending from the second end plate (Fig. 1), wherein the first and second spiral wraps cooperate to define a plurality of fluid pockets (P); and a control valve (300, 400; Figs. 3-4 & 8) including a body (430; Fig. 8), a housing (310; Fig. 8), and a valve member (420), the housing is fixed relative to the second end plate (Fig. 8), the body fixedly received in a valve passage in the second end plate and sealingly engages a first portion of the valve passage (Fig. 8), the housing (310) includes an aperture (321) that is open to a suction chamber (12) of the compressor (via line 530 and valve 540; para. 56). However, Kiem is silent as it relates to the body having a first passage, second passage, and third passage, the valve member is disposed within the housing and is movable therein between first and second positions. Thus, Kiem likewise falls far short of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s recited invention, and likewise fails to overcome or remedy the deficiencies noted above in Stover.
Taiki and Bercot et al. disclose additional scroll compressors having similar arrangements to those described above, but neither of these references overcomes or remedies the many deficiencies noted above.
As such, the best available prior art clearly falls short of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s inventions as recited in Claim 11, and as such, the claims are found to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance: the best available prior art fails to disclose the inventions as recited in independent Claim 14. The best available prior art references are as follows:
1. US 2016/0032924 to Stover (applied above)
2. US 8,840,384 to Patel et al.
3. US 2009/1096781 to Kiem et al.
4. JP 6570756 to Taiki
5. US 2023/0296097 to Bercot et al.
Stover (applied above) is considered to be the most relevant prior art reference available, and has been thoroughly detailed above. However, Stover fails to disclose the limitations of Claim 14, including a scroll member having an end plate including a first recess and a second recess, and a capacity-modulation system operable to switch the compressor among a high-capacity mode, an intermediate-capacity mode, and a low-capacity mode, wherein: the capacity-modulation system includes a first piston, a second piston, a first control valve, and a second control valve, the first and second control valves are movable between a first position and a second position, the first and second pistons are disposed within the first and second recesses, respectively, and are movable therein between an open position and a closed position, when the first and second pistons are in the open position, fluid communication is allowed between the first and second modulation ports and a suction-pressure region of the compressor, when the first and second pistons are in the closed position, fluid communication is prevented between the first and second modulation ports and the suction-pressure region of the compressor, movement of the first control valve to the first position causes movement of the first piston to the closed position, and movement of the first control valve to the second position causes movement of the first piston to the open position, and movement of the second control valve to the first position causes movement of the second piston to the closed position, and movement of the second control valve to the second position causes movement of the second piston to the open position. Stover lacks any and all disclosure of a first and second pistons being disposed within first and second recesses of the end plate of the scroll member and being controlled to provide the three distinct levels of capacity through specific positioning of the pistons via respective first and second control valves, as particularly recited in Claim 14.
Patel provides another relevant prior art reference, and discloses a scroll compressor assembly (20; Fig. 1) a first scroll (22) having a first end plate and a first spiral wrap extending from the first end plate (Fig. 1); a second scroll (24) having a second end plate and a second spiral wrap extending from the second end plate (Fig. 1), wherein the first and second spiral wraps cooperate to define a plurality of fluid pockets (26); and a control valve (44). However, Patel is silent as it relates to an end plate including a first recess and a second recess, and a capacity-modulation system operable to switch the compressor among a high-capacity mode, an intermediate-capacity mode, and a low-capacity mode, wherein: the capacity-modulation system includes a first piston, a second piston, a first control valve, and a second control valve, the first and second control valves are movable between a first position and a second position, the first and second pistons are disposed within the first and second recesses, respectively, and are movable therein between an open position and a closed position, when the first and second pistons are in the open position, fluid communication is allowed between the first and second modulation ports and a suction-pressure region of the compressor, when the first and second pistons are in the closed position, fluid communication is prevented between the first and second modulation ports and the suction-pressure region of the compressor, movement of the first control valve to the first position causes movement of the first piston to the closed position, and movement of the first control valve to the second position causes movement of the first piston to the open position, and movement of the second control valve to the first position causes movement of the second piston to the closed position, and movement of the second control valve to the second position causes movement of the second piston to the open position. Stover lacks any and all disclosure of a first and second pistons being disposed within first and second recesses of the end plate of the scroll member and being controlled to provide the three distinct levels of capacity through specific positioning of the pistons via respective first and second control valves, as particularly recited in Claim 14. Thus, Patel falls far short of remedying the failing in Stover and of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s recited invention.
Kiem discloses another similarly relevant prior art reference and likewise discloses a scroll compressor assembly (10; Fig. 1) having a first scroll (40) having a first end plate and a first spiral wrap extending from the first end plate (Fig. 1); a second scroll (30) having a second end plate and a second spiral wrap extending from the second end plate (Fig. 1), wherein the first and second spiral wraps cooperate to define a plurality of fluid pockets (P); and a control valve (300, 400; Figs. 3-4 & 8). However, Kiem is silent as it relates to an end plate including a first recess and a second recess, and a capacity-modulation system operable to switch the compressor among a high-capacity mode, an intermediate-capacity mode, and a low-capacity mode, wherein: the capacity-modulation system includes a first piston, a second piston, a first control valve, and a second control valve, the first and second control valves are movable between a first position and a second position, the first and second pistons are disposed within the first and second recesses, respectively, and are movable therein between an open position and a closed position, when the first and second pistons are in the open position, fluid communication is allowed between the first and second modulation ports and a suction-pressure region of the compressor, when the first and second pistons are in the closed position, fluid communication is prevented between the first and second modulation ports and the suction-pressure region of the compressor, movement of the first control valve to the first position causes movement of the first piston to the closed position, and movement of the first control valve to the second position causes movement of the first piston to the open position, and movement of the second control valve to the first position causes movement of the second piston to the closed position, and movement of the second control valve to the second position causes movement of the second piston to the open position. Stover lacks any and all disclosure of a first and second pistons being disposed within first and second recesses of the end plate of the scroll member and being controlled to provide the three distinct levels of capacity through specific positioning of the pistons via respective first and second control valves, as particularly recited in Claim 14. Thus, Kiem falls far short of remedying the failing in Stover and of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s recited invention.
Taiki and Bercot et al. disclose additional scroll compressors having similar arrangements to those described above, but neither of these references overcomes or remedies the many deficiencies noted above.
As such, the best available prior art clearly falls short of disclosing or rendering obvious Applicant’s inventions as recited in Claim 14, and as such, the claims are found to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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