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 .
35 USC 103 rejections
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 1-5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP 202221156 (Mogi) in view of U.S. 2014/0099218 (Hiwata).
Regarding independent claim 1, Mogi discloses a rotary compressor comprising: a casing 1; a motor to be disposed inside the casing; a compression part to be disposed below the motor; a plurality of refrigerant passages 13, 14 configured to penetrate the compression part along an edge of the compression part; an upper muffler 9, to be disposed on an upper surface of the compression part, forming an upper muffler space that allows refrigerant to be introduced thereto along a vertical direction of the rotary compressor through the plurality of refrigerant passages; an inner muffler 15, to be disposed on a lower surface of the compression part, forming an inner muffler space that prevents refrigerant from passing through at least one refrigerant passage among the plurality of refrigerant passages and allows the refrigerant to pass through remaining refrigerant passages among the plurality of refrigerant passages; an outer muffler 10, to be disposed below the inner muffler, forming an outer muffler space 12, the outer muffler 10 being in contact with a portion of the inner muffler 12 and allowing the refrigerant from the inner muffler space prevented from passing through the at least one refrigerant passage to pass through. Mogi does not disclose a refrigerant discharge passage, to be provided on the portion of the inner muffler in contact with the outer muffler space, configured such that the refrigerant in the inner muffler space is selectively discharged to the outer muffler space depending on a flow rate of refrigerant discharged from the lower surface of the compression part. However, Mogi further discloses the outer muffler (10) and the inner muffler (15) communicate with each other (see paragraph [0014] and figure 2). Hiwata is relied upon to disclose lower frame (7) in contact with a space formed by a muffler (23); and a second passage (34b) which is arranged in a cover portion and is provided with a second check valve (35b) formed so that a refrigerant in an inner space (28) can be selectively discharged to the space of the muffler (23) (see paragraph [0094] and figure 2). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to form a refrigerant discharge passage to be provided on the portion of the inner muffler in contact with the outer muffler space, configured such that the refrigerant in the inner muffler space is selectively discharged to the outer muffler space depending on a flow rate of refrigerant discharged from the lower surface of the compression part, for the purpose of shortening the discharge refrigerant passage.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 15, Mogi does not disclose different types of discharge passage including a plurality of holes in claim 2, a plate valve in claim 4, various size with a perforation ratio in claim 3, location of the discharge hole in claim 5, and rated volume in claim 15. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A) Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation, note In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). It would have been a “routine optimization” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to elect the specific types of discharge passages including a plurality of holes in claim 2, a plate valve in claim 4, various size with a perforation ratio in claim 3, location of the discharge hole in claim 5, and rated volume in claim 15 as claimed in Mogi for the purpose of achieving equivalent compressing power output based on the specifically elected sizes, types of discharge passages.
Allowable Subject Matter and Reasons for Allowance
In claim 6, the recitation of “wherein the plurality of refrigerant passages include three refrigerant passages, and the inner muffler is configured such that the refrigerant from the inner muffler space passes through two refrigerant passages adjacent to the discharge hole along a direction of flow of the refrigerant discharged from the discharge hole among the three refrigerant passages, and the refrigerant is prevented from passing through a refrigerant passage far from the discharge hole along the direction of flow of the refrigerant”; in claim 8, the recitations of “wherein the inner muffler is formed in a dome shape and includes a plurality of inner convex portions formed at regular intervals along a circumferential direction of the inner muffler on a side surface of the inner muffler, and the plurality of refrigerant passages through which the refrigerant is introduced to the inner muffler space are located in the plurality of inner convex portions,”, as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claims 6, 8, are neither disclosed by a single prior art reference nor rendered obvious by a combination of prior art references. Thus, claims , 6, 8 and their dependent claims are allowable.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morishita, Lee, Kwon, Byun, Kim and Yang disclose rotary compressors comprising mufflers and refrigerant discharge passages around the muffler areas.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Examiner Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4861. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday--Thursday from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HOANG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
HOANG NGUYEN
PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 3746
Hoang Minh Nguyen
6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights