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 U (Figures 35-37) 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 1-20 will be examined.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0032924 to Stover.
PNG
media_image1.png
1028
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-9, Stover specifically discloses:
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), 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); wherein: the second end plate includes a modulation port (154) and a vent passage (160), wherein the modulation port in in fluid communication with one of the fluid pockets (126-132) at one of the radially intermediate positions (para. 62), and wherein the vent passage is in fluid communication with the modulation port and a suction-pressure region (Fig. 4; para. 66); and a capacity-modulation system (30) operable in a high-capacity mode (“full-capacity mode”; para. 72) and a low-capacity mode (“second level of capacity modulation”; para. 72), the capacity-modulation system including 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 movable 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), movement of the control valve between the first and second positions causes movement of the piston to the closed position (Figs. 2-3; see also Fig. 9; paras. 65-66), the piston is disposed within a first recess (150; Fig. 2; see also 350 in Figs. 8-9) that extends into the second end plate, wherein the piston seats against a surface of the second end plate in the closed position (Figs. 2-3), and at least one of the piston and the surface of the second end plate includes a second recess that decreases a surface area of contact between the piston and the surface of the second end plate (i.e. the “Piston Recess” denoted in Fig. 2 above, as annotated by the Examiner for clarity; alternatively, the “Scroll Recess” denoted in Fig. 2 above, as annotated by the Examiner for clarity).
In regards to Claim 2, the second recess is formed in the piston (apparent in Fig. 2 above) and is in fluid communication with the modulation port (apparent in Fig. 4).
In regards to Claim 3, the second recess is in fluid communication with the vent passage (apparent in Fig. 4).
In regards to Claim 4, the suction-pressure region is a suction inlet defined by the second scroll (“a suction pressure region of compressor 10”; para. 66; in other words, the suction space directly surrounding the second scroll 102; it is further noted that a suction inlet is implicit to a scroll compression mechanism; see also “inlet pocket 24” at para. 59), and wherein the vent passage extends from the suction inlet (Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 5, the control valve selectively allows intermediate-pressure working fluid to flow into an actuation chamber (176) defined by the piston and the second end plate (Figs. 2-3; para. 65), and wherein 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 6, the second end plate 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).
In regards to Claim 7, the second portion (116) of the second end plate defines the first recess (150) and cooperates with the piston (170) to define the actuation chamber (176) (Figs. 2-4).
In regards to Claim 8, wherein the second recess (“Scroll Recess” in Fig. 2 above) is formed in the first portion (52) of the second end plate (Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 9, the control valve (430; Fig. 10) includes a body (480), a housing (an outer housing is apparent in Fig. 10), and a valve member (482), the body is received in a valve passage (458) in the second portion of the second end plate (Fig. 10), the housing is fixed relative to the second end plate and the body (Fig. 10; paras. 80-82), and the valve member is disposed within the housing and is movable therein between the first and second positions (paras. 80-82).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0032924 to Stover (Robert hereinafter).
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1 & 8-10, Robert specifically discloses:
1. A compressor (10; Fig. 1) comprising: a first scroll (104) having a first end plate (108) and a first spiral wrap (110) extending from the first end plate (Fig. 1); a second scroll (106) having a second end plate and a second spiral wrap extending from the second end plate, wherein the first and second spiral wraps cooperate to define a plurality of fluid pockets (Fig. 1; Abstract), and wherein during operation of the compressor, the fluid pockets move from a radially outer position to radially intermediate positions to a radially inner position (i.e. radially inward to discharge port 119; see Fig. 1); and a capacity-modulation system (227; Fig. 8) including a control valve (376) and a piston (380; Fig. 9), wherein: the second end plate includes a first portion (309; Fig. 9) and a second portion (307; Fig. 9) that is attached to the first portion by fasteners (311; Fig. 8), the second end plate includes a modulation port (370) and a vent passage (the vent passage is not shown, but Robert specifically teaches that the valve 376 functions to “selectively vent recess 342 to a suction pressure region”), wherein the modulation port is in fluid communication with one of the fluid pockets at one of the radially intermediate positions (Fig. 9; “Port 370 may be located in one of the compression pockets located at least five hundred and forty degrees radially inward from a starting point (S') of wrap 320”), wherein the modulation port is disposed in the first portion of the second end plate (Fig. 9), and wherein the vent passage is in fluid communication with the modulation port and a suction-pressure region (“Valve assembly 376 may selectively vent recess 342 to a suction pressure region”; Fig. 10), the piston is movable between an open position (Fig. 10) in which fluid communication between the modulation port and the vent passage is allowed and a closed position (Fig. 9) in which fluid communication between the modulation port and the vent passage is prevented, movement of the control valve between a first position and a second position causes movement of the piston between the open and closed positions (col. 7, line 38 – col. 9, line 5), the piston is movably disposed within a first recess (342) that extends into the second portion of the second end plate (Fig. 9), wherein the piston seats against a surface of the first portion of the second end plate in the closed position (Fig. 10), at least one of the piston and the surface of the first portion of the second end plate includes a second recess (a piston recesses that receives a a spring 402 is apparent in Figs. 9-10) that decreases a surface area of contact between the piston and the surface of the second end plate (apparent in Fig. 9), and the second portion of the second end plate defines the first recess and cooperates with the piston to define an actuation chamber (347).
In regards to Claim 13, the second recess is formed in the piston and is in fluid communication with the modulation port (apparent in Fig. 10).
In regards to Claim 14, the second recess is in fluid communication with the vent passage (apparent in Fig. 10; see also “Valve assembly 376 may selectively vent recess 342 to a suction pressure region”; Fig. 10).
In regards to Claim 15, the suction-pressure region is a suction inlet (i.e. the space directly surrounding the scroll compression mechanism) defined by the second scroll (a suction inlet/region is implicit in a scroll compression mechanism; furthermore, venting “to a suction pressure region” as disclosed in Robert is clearly equivalent to venting fluid to the suction inlet of the scroll), and wherein the vent passage extends from the suction inlet (i.e. the vent passage directly communicates to the suction inlet/region surrounding the scroll).
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert (applied above) in view of US 8,840,384 to Patel et al.
In regards to Claim 16, Robert discloses the compressor of claim 12, wherein: the control valve (376) includes a housing (182) and a valve member (184), the valve member is disposed within the housing (Fig. 7) and is movable therein between the first and second positions (Figs. 6-7). However, Robert is silent towards the control valve having a received in a valve passage in the second portion of the second end plate, the housing is fixed relative to the second end plate and the body.
However, Patel provides another scroll compressor assembly (20; Fig. 1) having 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) for modulation the capacity of the compressor. Patel goes on to disclose the control valve 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 (Fig. 1), the housing being fixed relative to the second end plate (Fig. 1), as claimed. Patel makes clear that such a valve arrangement allows for electronic actuation of the valve through a solenoid drive, thereby allowing for precise electronic control of the compressor capacity. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a scroll compressor with improved control valve actuation, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Patel in combination with those seen in Robert in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robert’s control valve with the solenoid-driven control valve structure taught in Patel in order to obtain predictable results; those results being more precise control over the control valve’s actuation/position during capacity modulation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 & 17-20 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 10 and 18. The best available prior art references are as follows:
1. US 2016/0032924 to Stover (applied above)
2. US 8,568,118 to Robert (applied above)
3. US 8,840,384 to Patel et al. (applied above)
4. US 2009/1096781 to Kiem et al.
5. JP 6570756 to Taiki
6. US 2023/0296097 to Bercot et al.
Stover and Robert (applied above) are considered to be the most relevant prior art references available, and have been thoroughly detailed above. However, Stover and Robert fail to disclose the limitations of Claims 10 & 17, 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 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, and the body includes a first passage, a second passage, and a third passage, as claimed. Stover and Robert lack any disclosure of a control valve having a body, housing, and valve member structured as particularly recited in Claims 10 & 17.
Patel provides another relevant prior art reference, and has been detailed above as well. 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 Robert 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 and Robert.
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.
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