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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on March 4, 2026 is acceptable. The specification objections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ § 103 or 35 USC § 103
35 USC § 102
(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)(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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STOVER (U.S. Patent 10,378,542 B2) in view of RAMSEY (U.S. Patent 5,141,407).
Regarding claim 1, STOVER discloses: a scroll compressor (see Figure 7, and Abstract) comprising:
a casing (12, 28, 30, 34);
a high/low pressure separation cover (32) dividing an inside of the casing into a low pressure portion (37) and a high pressure portion (36);
a fixed scroll (406, 418) disposed at the low pressure portion (see Figures 1 and 7);
an orbiting scroll (104, 108) which engages with the fixed scroll and orbits and which forms a compression chamber with the fixed scroll (see Figures 1 and 7, Column 8, lines 47-59, Column 5, line 45-Column 6, line 9);
a motor (16) to transmit a driving force to the orbiting scroll (see Figure 1, Column 5, lines 38-61);
an overheating prevention device (727) coupled to the high/low pressure separation cover (see Figure 7), and including:
a body (446, 438) including a valve seat (see Figures 5A and 5B that shows the design of the overheating prevention device where (446) is at the end that the valve contacts (see Figure 5A)) in a bottom surface of the body (see Figures 5A and 5B) and disposed at a position lower than an upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover (see Figure 7), and a refrigerant discharge hole (447) through the bottom surface of the body to thereby allow the high pressure portion to communicate with the low pressure portion (see Figures 5A, 5B, and 7, Column 11, line 29 – Column 12, line 6),
a bimetal valve (Column 1, lines 65-67, Column 2, lines 65-68, Column 9, line 60 – Column 10, line 18, claim 3), and
a housing (434) coupled to the body to restrict the bimetal valve to movement in an axial direction (see Figures 5A, 5B, and 7 that shows the housing restricts the bimetal valve to movement in an axial direction),
such that the bimetal valve selectively opens and closes the refrigerant discharge hole according to a temperature of the high pressure portion and such that a high temperature refrigerant of the high pressure portion is discharged downward through the refrigerant discharge hole to the low pressure portion based on the temperature of the high pressure portion being equal to or greater than a certain temperature (see Figures 5A, 5B, and 7, Column 10, lines 29-62); and
an overload breaker (754, 756) which is disposed at the low pressure portion (see Figure 7), and which is operated by the high temperature refrigerant discharged downward through the refrigerant discharge hole and then from the overheating prevention device to turn the motor off (see Figure 7, Column 11, line 39-Column 12, line 6),
wherein the body of the overheating prevention device is disposed at an upper side of the overload breaker such that the high temperature refrigerant discharged downward through the refrigerant discharge hole is directed to the overload breaker (see Figure 7, Column 11, line 39-Column 12, line 6).
STOVER discloses the valve having a bi-metal inside the valve that moves the valve stem and valve plate to move up (close position) and down (to open position), and therefore, fails to disclose a bimetal valve seated on the valve seat so as to be positioned at a boundary portion between the high pressure portion and the low pressure portion.
Regarding claim 1, RAMSEY teaches:
an overheating prevention device (134) including:
a body (158) (see Figures 5 and 7) having a refrigerant discharge hole (142) allowing the high pressure portion to communicate with the low pressure portion (Column 5, line 63 – Column 6, line 11, where the first embodiment is disclosed in Column 5, lines 15 – Column 6, line 11, where the embodiment shown in Figures 5 and 7 are modifications of the first embodiment, but operate similarly to the first embodiment, where reference to the first embodiment is due to the same components are stated to operate in the same manner as the first embodiment)),
a bimetal valve (146) (Column 5, lines 8-14, claim 6) seated on the valve seat (see Figures 5 and 7 that shows that the bimetal valve seats on the valve seat), and
a housing (150) coupled to the body to restrict the bimetal valve to movement in an axial direction (see Figures 2, 5, and 7, Column 5, lines 15-27),
so that the bimetal valve selectively opens and closes the refrigerant discharge hole according to a temperature of the high pressure portion and so that a high temperature refrigerant of the high pressure portion is discharged through the refrigerant discharge hole to the low pressure portion based on the temperature of the high pressure portion being equal to or greater than a certain temperature (Column 5, lines 28-49, Column 6, lines 2-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have swapped the valve of STOVER in the scroll compressor for the valve of RAMSEY, since a substitution of one known element (i.e. a bi-valve of STOVER) for another known element (i.e. a bi-valve of RAMSEY) requires only routine skill in the art and would have produced predictable results (i.e. to control the overheating prevention device, where in Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976) as cited in KSR: “the Court derived from the precedents the conclusion that when a patent “simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform” and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1395 (U.S. 2007).)
Regarding claim 3, STOVER discloses: the valve seat is disposed to be further away from the high pressure portion than the upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, RAMSEY further teaches: the bimetal valve includes a protrusion configured to close the refrigerant discharge hole (see Figures 5-8 that shows a protrusion at the center of the bimetal valve that closes the refrigerant discharge hole (142)).
Regarding claim 6, STOVER further discloses: the body of the overheating prevention device is couplable to the high/low pressure separation cover in a direction from an inside of the high/low pressure separation cover to an outside of the high/low pressure separation cover (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 7, STOVER further discloses: the body of the overheating prevention device is thread-fastened to the high/low pressure separation cover (Column 6, lines 35-47).
Regarding claim 11, RAMSEY further teaches: the bimetal valve includes a refrigerant passage hole (148) disposed around the protrusion. (see Figures 6 and 8, Column 5, lines 35-49).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified scroll compressor of STOVER/ RAMSEY as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of KR’054 (Korean Patent Publication KR 100297054 B1, a machine translation is provided with the foreign patent publication in the PTO-892 Notice of References cited and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 8, STOVER fails to disclose an internal pressure relief valve (IPR).
Regarding claim 8, RAMSEY further teaches: an internal pressure relief (IPR) valve coupled to the high/low pressure separation cover (RAMSEY discloses what appears to be an IPR valve (see Figure 1, where the IPR valve is attached to the high/low pressure separation cover at left side),
wherein a coupling direction the IPR valve to the high/low pressure separation cover is in a same direction as a coupling direction of the body of the overheating prevention device to the high/low pressure separation cover (see Figure 1 that shows the IPR valve is attached from the inside to the outside of the cover (i.e. the low pressure portion to the high pressure portion)).
RAMSEY fails to specifically disclose in the specification that what the Examiner sees in the figure is an internal pressure relief valve.
Regarding claim 8, KR’054 teaches: an internal pressure relief (IPR) valve (21) coupled to the high/low pressure separation cover (2) (see Figure 3, top of Page 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have an internal pressure relief (IPR) valve coupled to the high/low pressure separation cove in the modified scroll compressor of STOVER/RAMSEY, in order to prevent excessive pressure discharged and that the pressure is in a constant region (see Top of Page 4 of KR’054). Furthermore, having an internal pressure relief (IPR) valve in a scroll compressor is well-known in the art as evidence by RAMSEY and KR’054, where it requires only routine skill in the art to have an internal pressure relief (IPR) valve in a scroll compressor, as well as produces predictable results (i.e. protecting the scroll compressor from excessive pressure).
The combination of STOVER/RAMSEY/KR’054 as discussed above in claim 6, where the overheating prevention device is coupled to the high/low pressure separation cover from the inside to the outside, thereby, the resulting combination as discussed above in claim 6 with the additional IPR valve discussed in claim 8 would result in a direction coupling the IPR valve to the high/low pressure separation cover is the same direction as a direction coupling the body of the overheating prevention device to the high/low pressure separation cover. Furthermore, attaching valves to the high/low pressure separation cover in the same direction would require only routine skill in the art, and produce predictable results (i.e. ease of assembly).
Regarding claim 9, the modified scroll compressor of STOVER/RAMSEY/ KR’054 discloses the claimed invention including a lower portion of the body of the overheating prevention device is provided with a first grip surface to which a wrench is coupled (see Figure 5 of KR’054), and
a lower part of the IPR valve (see Figure 1 of RAMSEY and Figure 3 of KR’054) is provided with a second grip surface, however, STOVER, RAMSEY, and KR’054 fail to disclose that the second grip surface is in the same size as that of the first grip surface.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the first and second grip surfaces of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified scroll compressor of STOVER/RAMSEY as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JIN (U.S. Patent 10,458,412 B2).
Regarding claim 10, the modified scroll compressor of STOVER/RAMSEY discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, however, fails to disclose the body of the overheating prevention device is made of an insulation material.
Regarding claim 10, JIN teaches: the body (181) of the overheating prevention device (180) is made of an insulation material (see Figure 5B, Column 7, lines 59-62, Column 8, lines 28-38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the body of the overheating prevention device is made of an insulation material in the modified scroll compressor of STOVER/RAMSEY, in order to prevent heat transfer between the body of the overheating prevention device and the high/low separation cover and reducing the effects of the low pressure portion on the valve plate (see Column 8, lines 28-28 and Column 9, lines 28-35 of JIN).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by RAMSEY or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over RAMSEY in view of STOVER.
Regarding claim 12, RAMSEY discloses: an overheating prevention device (134) coupled to a high/low pressure separation cover (16) dividing an inside of a casing (10, 12) of a scroll compressor (see Abstract and Figure 1) into a low pressure portion (low pressure portion is connected to the inlet (17)) and a high pressure portion (the high pressure portion is connected to the outlet (14) and includes (76)), the overheating prevention device comprising:
a body (158) (see Figures 5 and 7) including a refrigerant discharge hole (142) through a bottom surface of the body (see Figure 5 and 7) to thereby allow the high pressure portion to communicate with the low pressure portion and through which high temperature refrigerant in the high pressure portion is dischargeable downward at a position lower than an upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover (Column 5, line 63 – Column 6, line 11, where the first embodiment is disclosed in Column 5, lines 15 – Column 6, line 11, where the embodiment shown in Figures 5 and 7 are modifications of the first embodiment, but operate similarly to the first embodiment, where reference to the first embodiment is due to the same components are stated to operate in the same manner as the first embodiment)) and a valve seat (see Figures 5 and 7 that shows the valve seat that the valve (146) rests on);
a bimetal valve (142) (Column 5, lines 8-14, claim 6) seated on the valve seat (see Figures 5 and 7) including a protrusion (see Figures 5-8 that shows a protrusion in the center of the valve) which selectively opens and closes the refrigerant discharge hole according to a temperature of the high pressure portion (see Figures 5-8, Column 5, lines 28-49, Column 6, lines 2-22), and a refrigerant passage hole (148) positioned around the protrusion (see Figures 6 and 8, Column 5, lines 35-49); and
a housing (150) coupled to the body to restrict the bimetal valve to movement in an axial direction (see Figures 2, 5, and 7, and Column 5, lines 15-27).
RAMSEY discloses the claimed limitations, where the limitations directed to the overheating prevention device having a valve seat in a bottom surface of the body and disposed at a position lower than an upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover and on an upper side of the refrigerant discharge hole is considered as an environment to the “overheating prevention device”, where the overheating prevention device is capable of being located such that the valve seat is disposed at a position lower than an upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover and on an upper side of the refrigerant discharge hole.
Alternatively, STOVER teaches locating the overheating prevention device having a valve seat in a bottom surface of the body and disposed at a position lower than an upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover and on an upper side of the refrigerant discharge hole.
Regarding claim 12, STOVER discloses: the overheating prevention device (727) having a valve seat (see Figures 5A, 5B, and 7 that shows a valve seat that the valve portion (456) contacts) in a bottom surface of the body (see Figures 5A, 5B, and 7) and disposed at a position lower than an upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover (732) (see Figure 7) and on an upper side of the refrigerant discharge hole (136) (see Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have located the overheating prevention device having a valve seat in a bottom surface of the body and disposed at a position lower than an upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover and on an upper side of the refrigerant discharge hole in the overheating prevention device of RAMSEY, since locating overheating prevention device in known positions to stop the compressor when excessive temperatures are reached is well-known in the art as evidence by STOVER. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the overheating prevention device having a valve seat disposed at a position lower than an upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover and on an upper side of the refrigerant discharge hole, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, STOVER further teaches: the bimetal valve is positioned at a boundary portion between the high pressure portion and the low pressure portion (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 14, STOVER further teaches: the bimetal valve is disposed to be further away from the high pressure portion than the upper surface of the high/low pressure separation cover (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 15, STOVER further teaches: the body of the overheating prevention device is couplable to the high/low pressure separation cover in a direction from an inside of the high/low pressure separation cover to an outside of the high/low pressure separation cover (see Figure 7).
The Examiner would like to point out that claims 12-15 recite limitations directed to the placement of the overheating prevention device, which is part of the environment that the overheating prevention device is in. Since the valve of RAMSEY is capable of being attached at the claimed location in the compressor, RAMSEY meets the claimed limitation. The Examiner has combined RAMSEY with STOVER to show that it is well known to locate the overheating prevention device in this environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection based on applicant’s amendment.
The Examiner has introduced a new prior art of STOVER that discloses the location of the valve, where the valve of RAMSEY can replace the valve of STOVER in the same location. STOVER discloses locating the valve seat below the high/low pressure separation cover (see Figure 7), as well as, having a valve seat in the bottom surface of the body (see Figures 5A, 5B, and 7). KR’054 was utilized in the rejection to show that an IPV valve is well-known in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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.
/Mary A Davis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights