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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 17-26, 29-38 & 43-44 are pending in the application. Claims 1-16, 27-28 & 39-42 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) and/or PCT Article 7, Paragraph (1). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Crankshaft radius r
No new matter should be entered.
It is noted Applicant submitted a new Figure 8B. However, the 07/09/2026 Figure 8B contains new matter, the lack of a bearing between the crankshaft and the big end portion of the connecting rod. As such, the 07/09/2026 Figure 8B was not entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “Acyl”, “Acr”, “e2”, and “r”.
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 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.
Claims 17-26, 29-38 & 43-44 are 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.
As to Claim 17, the limitation “βLmin is a minimum oscillation value of β during a compression stroke of the piston”, in Lines 13-14, is indefinite in light of the specification.
Instant application Figure 4(C) shows the claimed compressor at bottom dead center, and instant application Figure 4(E) shows the claimed compressor at top dead center. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude instant application Figures 4(C) to 4(E) show the claimed “compression stroke of the piston”. Additionally, since the angle β is defined as the angle between the central axis of the cylinder –the vertical dashed line in each of the figures in Figure 4— and the connecting rod –27 in Figure 4--, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the minimum oscillation angle during the compression stroke is when the central axis of the cylinder and the connecting rod align in Figure 4, since this is when the angle would be zero. However, Figure 4(D) defines the minimum oscillation angle as the angle shown in Figure 4(D). As such, it is not clear how the term “minimum” is being applied, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the angle shown in Figure 4(D) to be a minimum angle.
The limitation “wherein, the offset amount e1 is an offset amount at which βTDC = - βLmin”, in Line 15, is indefinite. When referencing instant application Figure 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude offset amount e1 never changes, since the central axis of the cylinder and the rotation center of the crankshaft never change. As such, it is not clear how the limitation is further limiting the claim, since e1 is always the same offset amount, regardless of the oscillation vale during operation.
Additionally, the term βTDC, in Line 15, is written differently than βTDC, in Line 13. As such, it is not clear if the respective iterations of the terms are the same term or different terms. For the purpose of examination, the two terms will be interpreted as the same term.
Similarly, the term βLmin, in Line 15, is written differently than βLmin, in Line 13. As such, it is not clear if the respective iterations of the terms are the same term or different terms. For the purpose of examination, the two terms will be interpreted as the same term.
As to Claim 18, the limitation “βLmin is a local minimum oscillation value of β during a compression stroke of the piston”, in Lines 14-15, is indefinite
Instant application Figure 4(C) shows the claimed compressor at bottom dead center, and instant application Figure 4(E) shows the claimed compressor at top dead center. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude instant application Figures 4(C) to 4(E) show the claimed “compression stroke of the piston”. Additionally, since the angle β is defined as the angle between the central axis of the cylinder –the vertical dashed line in each of the figures in Figure 4— and the connecting rod –27 in Figure 4--, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the minimum oscillation angle during the compression stroke is when the central axis of the cylinder and the connecting rod align in Figure 4, since this is when the angle would be zero. However, Figure 4(D) defines the minimum oscillation angle as the angle shown in Figure 4(D). As such, it is not clear how the term “minimum” is being applied, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the angle shown in Figure 4(D) to be a minimum angle.
The limitation “an offset amount e2 is an offset amount of the lateral offset between the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder and the rotation center axis (Acr) of the crankshaft at which the oscillation angle β satisfies a relationship βBDC = - βLmin; and the offset amount e satisfies a condition e2≤e<r”, in Lines 15-18, is indefinite. When referencing instant application Figure 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude offset amounts e and e2 never change, since the central axis of the cylinder and the rotation center of the crankshaft never change. Since offset e2 and offset e have the same definition, it is not clear how e2 can be less than e, as required in the limitation.
As to Claim 19, the limitation “in a state in which a line segment connecting a rotation center of the crankshaft and a center of a big end portion bearing of the connecting rod is parallel to the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder”, in Lines 2-5, is indefinite.
It is not clear what differentiates the term “a rotation center of the crankshaft” from the previously defined “rotation center axis (Acr) of the crankshaft”, since the structure appears to be exactly the same structure. For the purpose of examination, the two terms will be interpreted as the same structure.
Additionally, the limitation is written in a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret as when two conditions – 1) a line segment connecting a rotation center of the crankshaft; and 2) a center of a big end portion bearing of the connecting rod is parallel to the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder-- are concurrent, a third condition occurs. However, the third condition is not described. A such, it is not clear how to interpret the limitation.
As to Claim 19, the limitation “in a state in which a line segment connecting a rotation center of the crankshaft and a center of a big end portion bearing of the connecting rod is parallel to the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder”, in Lines 2-5, is indefinite.
It is not clear what differentiates the term “a rotation center of the crankshaft” from the previously defined “rotation center axis (Acr) of the crankshaft”, since the structure appears to be exactly the same structure. For the purpose of examination, the two terms will be interpreted as the same structure.
Additionally, the limitation is written in a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret as when two conditions – 1) a line segment connecting a rotation center of the crankshaft; and 2) a center of a big end portion bearing of the connecting rod is parallel to the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder-- are concurrent, a third condition occurs. However, the third condition is not described. A such, it is not clear how to interpret the limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, the 07/09/2026 Figure 8B contains new matter, so was not entered. As such, the drawings still require the radius to be identified. Additionally, it appears adding in reference signs “Acyl”, “Acr”, “e2”, and “r” into the drawings would help clarify what Applicant is attempting to claim, and may help prevent future 112(b) rejections.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the amendments to the claims required new indefinite rejections, as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights