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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 15 the label “BERAING DEFORMATION” should be “BEARING DEFORMATION”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, after “muffler” “and” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “compression part” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim includes an unbound range, i.e., the distance…”is at least 1 mm.” The applicant has not shown possession of the outer limits of the claimed range, such as the distance being 1 m.
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.
The term “heat-resistant resin” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heat-resistant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination any resin will be considered to be heat-resistant under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Byun et al (KR 20090012841A, cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 1, Byun et al disclose a rotary compressor (see Fig. 24) comprising: a casing (101); a motor (110) to be disposed inside the casing; a compression part (120, 121) to be disposed below the motor; a lower flange (161) to be disposed below the compression part; a muffler (171), having a portion that is flat (171B), to be disposed on a lower surface of the lower flange; and a sealing plate (G1, G2) to be disposed between the muffler and the lower flange (each of G1 and G2 are between the muffler and the lower flange).
With regards to claim 2, as set forth above Byun et al discloses the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses, wherein the portion (171B) that is flat is an upper end of the muffler does not protrude (see Fig. 12) above the lower surface of the lower flange.
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) 3-7 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun et al in view of Morishita et al (USPAP 2017/0175742) and Lee et al (KR20200020203A, cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 3, Byun et al substantially suggest the claimed invention but only discloses the compression part, sealing plate and muffler in cross section and therefore do not fully teach that the muffler is formed in a dome shape and includes a plurality of concave portions formed at regular intervals along a circumferential direction of the muffler on a side surface of the muffler, and wherein the sealing plate is formed in a ring shape and includes an inner circumferential surface formed concavely and convexly corresponding to the muffler.
Morishita et al discloses a similar compressor wherein the muffler is formed in a dome shape (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 below) and includes a plurality of concave portions (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 below) formed at regular intervals (clear from Fig. 2) along a circumferential direction of the muffler on a side surface of the muffler. And Lee et al teach wherein the sealing plate (820 in Fig. 3) is formed in a ring shape (clearly shown) and includes an inner circumferential surface formed concavely (between the bolt holes) and convexly (around the bolts holes) corresponding to the muffler.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the dome and ring shaped muffler of Morishita et al for the similarly disclosed muffler of Byun et al since each of these mufflers are recognized as equivalence for their use in the compressor noise dampening art and selection of either of these known equivalents to dampen noise from the compressor would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further it would have been obvious to make the sealing plate of Byun et al as taught by the Lee et al since a ring shaped sealing plate would completely prevent the discharged compressed gas from escaping the discharge chamber and leaking to the atmosphere, thus increasing efficiency.
With regards to claims 4 and 14, as set forth above Byun et al in view of Morishita et al and Lee et al disclose the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 3 and further disclose wherein the lower flange includes a plurality of lower refrigerant holes (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 below) and a plurality of first bolt holes (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 below) formed along an edge of the lower flange, and wherein the muffler includes a plurality of second bolt holes (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 below) formed corresponding to the plurality of first bolt holes of the lower flange at positions corresponding (note the 2nd bolt holes are between and alternate with the concave portions and therefore correspond to the concave portions) to the plurality of concave portions along an edge of the muffler. Claim 14 is similarly rejected.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
329
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 5, as set forth above Byun et al in view of Morishita et al and Lee et al disclose the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 4 and further disclose wherein the sealing plate includes a plurality of bolt seats (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 above) formed to protrude toward a center of the sealing plate from an inner circumferential surface of the sealing plate and having a plurality of third bolt holes (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 above) corresponding to the plurality of second bolt holes of the muffler.
With regards to claim 6, as set forth above Byun et al in view of Morishita et al and Lee et al disclose the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 5, wherein the sealing plate is formed so as not to cover the plurality of lower refrigerant holes of the lower flange (clear from Fig. 2 of Morishita et al and Fig. 1 of Byun et al).
With regards to claim 7, as set forth above Byun et al in view of Morishita et al and Lee et al disclose the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 6, but does not disclose that the distance between a concave portion of the sealing plate and an outer circumferential surface of the sealing plate is at least 1mm, however, it would have been obvious to make the sealing plate thick enough at the noted location in order to withstand the elevated pressures of the discharge chamber/muffler chamber, further such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 CCPA 1955).
With regards to claim 11, as set forth above Byun et al in view of Morishita et al and Lee et al discloses the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 1 and further disclose wherein the lower flange (161) comprises: a flange part (161A) formed in a disk shape (160S in Fig. 2 of Morishita et al); a boss (161B) extending vertically from the flange part and including a through hole (having the shaft therein); and a bearing (the surface holding the shaft) disposed in the through hole of the boss, and wherein the muffler comprises: a fixing plate (171B) formed in a ring shape (made obvious by Morishita et al as set forth above) and fixed to the flange part of the lower flange; a caulking portion (the portion abutting G1 in Byun et al) fixed to one end of the boss (see Fig. 12 of Byun et al); and a muffler portion (between G1 and G2) provided between the fixing plate and the caulking portion.
With regards to claim 12, as set forth above Byun et al in view of Morishita et al and Lee et al disclose the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 11 and further disclose wherein the muffler portion includes a plurality of concave portions (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 of Morishita et al above) formed at regular intervals in a circumferential direction of the muffler.
With regards to claim 13, as set forth above Byun et al in view of Morishita et al and Lee et al disclose the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 12 and further disclose wherein the wherein the fixing plate includes a plurality of protrusions (around the bolt holes of annotated Fig. 2 above) corresponding to the plurality of concave portions of the muffler portion (note the 2nd bolt holes are between and alternate with the concave portions and therefore correspond to the concave portions).
With regards to claim 15, as set forth above Byun et al in view of Morishita et al and Lee et al disclose the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 14 and further disclose wherein an inner circumferential surface of the sealing plate includes a plurality of bolt seats (labeled in annotated Fig. 3 of Lee et al above) formed to correspond to the plurality of protrusions of the fixing plate (the portions around the 2nd bolt holes as labeled in annotated Fig. 2 of Morishita et al above) and a plurality of refrigerant grooves (the concave portions as labeled in annotated Figs. 2 and 3 above) formed so as not to cover the plurality of lower refrigerant holes of the flange part (clear from Fig. 2 of Morishita et al and Fig. 1 of Byun et al).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun et al in view of Ortiz (USPN 4,881,879).
With regards to claim 9, as set forth above Byun et al discloses the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses wherein oil is received in a lower portion of the casing (note Fig. 9 which teaches that the lower end of the shaft has a central opening 113h with an oil pump mounted therein and that the end of the shaft forms an inlet). Byun et al do not disclose that the muffler is immersed in the oil.
Ortiz discloses a similar rotary compressor and in Fig. 1 shows that oil 114 submerges the muffler 92 and the end of a similar shaft and pump 112).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have enough oil in the bottom of the casing to submerge the muffler so that the inlet to the pump is always supplied with oil and therefore lubrication of the bearings continuously occurs during operation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun et al in view of Hirano et al (USPN 5,328,338).
With regards to claim 10, as set forth above Byun et al discloses the rotary compressor as set forth in claim 1 but does not specifically disclose that the sealing plate is formed of one of heat-resistant resin, steel, copper, and a material in which at least two of the heat-resistant resin, the steel, and the copper are laminated.
Hirano et al disclose a compressor having a muffler (700, 710) including a sealing plate 550 that is formed of a heat-resistant resin (see col. 9 lines 54-58 describing that the part 550 can be formed of elastic synthetic resin).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the sealing plate of heat-resistant resin as taught by Hirano et al, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose nor make obvious a rotary compressor including a compression part, lower flange, muffler and sealing plate as claimed; wherein a thickness of the sealing plate has a relationship with a thickness of the muffler as follows: 0.5 < thickness Ts of the sealing plate / thickness Tm of the muffler < 2.0. As described at paragraphs [0191] thru [0194] of the specification this particular ratio of the thicknesses of the sealing plate to the thickness of the muffler provides benefits and has criticality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gannaway et al and Uetuji et al similar rotary compressors with mufflers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
February 7, 2026