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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0175437 to Akei.
Regarding claim 1, Akei discloses a scroll compressor comprising:
a housing (102, fig. 2; [64]) having an interior chamber;
a drive shaft (160, fig. 2; [79]) disposed within the housing chamber, rotatable about a central axis, and having an eccentric end portion (next to 172B, fig. 2) with a centerline spaced from and extending parallel to the central axis;
a movable scroll member (114, fig. 2) disposed within the housing chamber;
a rolling element drive bearing (172A, 172B, fig. 2; [80]) configured to rotatably couple the drive shaft with the movable scroll member such that the scroll member orbits about the central axis, the drive bearing including at least one row of rolling elements (roller bearings; [90]) disposed between the shaft eccentric end portion and the scroll member (fig. 2), at least one of the rolling elements being formed of a ceramic material ([90]); and
a quantity of a solution formed of refrigerant and oil disposed within the housing, the solution being directed into the drive bearing to lubricate the at least one row of rolling elements ([83]).
Regarding claim 2, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one row of rolling elements includes a plurality of rolling elements formed of a ceramic material ([90]; roller bearings).
Regarding claim 3, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 1, wherein the movable scroll member includes first and second axial ends, the first axial end being engageable with a mating fixed scroll (112, fig. 2; [6]), and a cylindrical bore extending axially inwardly from the second axial end, the drive bearing being disposed within the cylindrical bore (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 3, wherein the drive bearing includes an outer ring (172A, fig. 2) disposed within the bore of the cylindrical hub and the at least one row of rolling elements roll directly against an outer circumferential surface of the eccentric portion of the shaft (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 1, further comprising a first support bearing (upper 172A, fig. 2; [80]) and a second support bearing (lower 172A, fig. 2; [80]) spaced apart from the first support bearing along the central axis, the first and second support bearings rotatably coupling the drive shaft with the housing and each one of the first and second support bearings including at least one row of rolling elements, at least one of the rolling elements of each one of the support bearings being formed of a ceramic material ([90]).
Regarding claim 13, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 12, wherein each one of the first and second support bearings is a deep groove ball bearing (fig. 2; ball bearings are shown).
Regarding claim 14, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 12, wherein a portion of the solution of refrigerant and oil is directed into each one of the first and second support bearings to lubricate the at least one row of rolling elements ([83]).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akei.
Regarding claim 4, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose that the cylindrical bore of the movable scroll member has an inside diameter with a value of between nineteen millimeters and eighty millimeters and the eccentric portion of the shaft has an outside diameter with a value of between twelve millimeters and sixty millimeters.
However, Akei discloses in [154] that the size of the system can be changed without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. As such, it is clear that the size of the cylinder bore can be selected based on the application of the system. Furthermore, the eccentric shaft 160 is fitted inside the cylinder bore via the roller bearings as shown in fig. 2. As such, it is also cleat that the shaft diameter will be smaller than that of the cylinder bore. As such, diameters the cylinder bore and the eccentric portion of the crankshaft is a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Akei to have the cylindrical bore of the movable scroll member with an inside diameter with a value of between nineteen millimeters and eighty millimeters and the eccentric portion of the shaft with an outside diameter with a value of between twelve millimeters and sixty millimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 206280258 to Li et al (Li) (Machine translation has been used for translational purposes).
Regarding claim 6, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose which Li discloses:
each one of the row of rolling elements of the drive bearing is a cylinder (needle bearings [30]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have needle bearings of Li as the roller bearings in the system of Akei so as to achieve a scroll compressor with a simple structure and high volumetric efficiency ([8]; Li).
Regarding claim 7, Akei combined with Li discloses the compressor as recited in claim 6, wherein each one of the cylinders is a needle ([30]; Li).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,469,713 to Wardle et al (Wardle).
Regarding claim 15, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 1, wherein the shaft rotates at an intended angular speed during compressor operation (operation of the pump), but does not explicitly disclose which Wardle discloses:
the drive bearing has a mean diameter sized such that the ndm factor of the bearing during compressor operation is no greater than three hundred thousand (col. 5, lines 20-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the bearing sized as disclosed by Wardle for the device of Akei so as to provide for the lubrication thereof by vaporizing the liquid refrigerant at a point proximate the bearing to be lubricated (col. 1; lines 10-12; Wardle).
Claim(s) 9-11, 16-19, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,807,920 to Ueno et al. (Ueno).
Regarding claim 9, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose which Ueno discloses:
the drive bearing further includes an annular cage (figs. 1-3, 12, 14, 15) formed of a polymeric material (claim 1; made of polyamide), the cage having a plurality of circumferentially spaced pockets and each one of the row of rolling elements is disposed within a separate one of the pockets (figs. 1-3, 12, 14, 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the roller bearings of Ueno as the roller bearings in the system of Akei so that the impact strength of the retainer is further improved (col. 4, lines 41-44; Ueno).
Regarding claim 10, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 9, wherein the polymeric material is polyetheretherketone or polyamide (polyamide, claim 1, col. 4, lines 41-44; Ueno).
Regarding claim 11, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 10, wherein the drive bearing includes an outer ring connected with the scroll member and having an inner circumferential guide surface (surface of bearing 172B contacting the cylinder bore, fig. 2; Akei), the cage (43, figs. 1-3, 12, 14, 15; Ueno) f having an outer circumferential surface slidable against the guide surface of the outer ring (figs. 1-3, 12, 14, 15; Ueno).
Regarding claim 16, Akei discloses a scroll compressor comprising:
a housing (102, fig. 2; [64]) having an interior chamber;
a drive shaft (160, fig. 2; [79]) disposed within the housing chamber, rotatable about a central axis, and having an eccentric end portion (next to 172B, fig. 2) with a centerline spaced from and extending parallel to the central axis;
a first support bearing (upper 172A, fig. 2; [80]) and a second support bearing (lower 172A, fig. 2; [80]) spaced apart from the first support bearing along the central axis, the first and second support bearings rotatably coupling the drive shaft with the housing and each one of the first and second support bearings including at least one row of rolling elements (fig. 2) and having a plurality of pockets, each pocket retaining a separate one of the rolling elements;
a scroll member (114, fig. 2) disposed within the housing chamber;
a drive bearing rotatably (172B, fig. 2; [80]) coupling the drive shaft with the scroll member such that the scroll member orbits about the central axis, the drive bearing including at least one row of rolling elements (fig. 2) and an annular cage having a plurality of pockets, each pocket retaining a separate one of the rolling elements; and
a quantity of a solution formed of refrigerant and oil disposed within the housing, the solution being directed to each one of the drive bearing and the first and second support bearings so as to lubricate the rolling elements ([83]).
However, Akei does not disclose that each one of the first and second support bearings and the drive bearing having an annular cage formed of a polymeric material and having a plurality of pockets, each pocket retaining a separate one of the rolling elements.
However, Ueno discloses roller bearings cage made of polyamide (figs. 1-3, 12, 14, 15, claim 1; col. 4, lines 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the roller bearings of Ueno as the roller bearings in the system of Akei so that the impact strength of the retainer is further improved (col. 4, lines 41-44; Ueno).
Regarding claim 17, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 16, wherein the polymeric material of each annular cage is polyetheretherketone or polyamide (polyamide, claim 1, col. 4, lines 41-44; Ueno).
Regarding claim 18, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 16, wherein the drive bearing includes an outer ring connected with the scroll member and having an inner circumferential guide surface (surface of bearing 172B contacting the cylinder bore, fig. 2; Akei), the annular cage (43, figs. 1-3, 12, 14, 15; Ueno) of the drive bearing having an outer circumferential surface slidable against the guide surface of the outer ring (figs. 1-3, 12, 14, 15; Ueno).
Regarding claim 19, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 16, wherein the scroll member includes first and second axial ends, the first axial end being engageable with a mating fixed scroll (fig. 2; Akei), and a cylindrical bore extending axially inwardly from the second axial end, the drive bearing being disposed within the cylindrical bore (fig. 2; Akei).
Regarding claim 21, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 16, wherein the drive bearing includes an outer ring (172A, fig. 2) disposed within the bore of the cylindrical hub (fig. 2; Akei) and the at least one row of rolling elements roll directly against an outer circumferential surface of the eccentric portion of the shaft (fig. 2; Akei).
Regarding claim 22, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 16, wherein each rolling element of the drive bearing is a cylinder and each rolling element of the first and second support bearings is a ball ([90]; Akei).
Regarding claim 23, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 22, wherein each cylinder of the drive bearing is a needle (col. 5, lines 64-67; Ueno).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have needle bearing of Ueno as the drive roller bearing in the system of Akei so that the impact strength of the retainer is further improved (col. 4, lines 41-44; Ueno).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akei combined with Ueno.
Regarding claim 20, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose that the cylindrical bore of the movable scroll member has an inside diameter with a value of between sixty millimeters and eighty millimeters and the eccentric portion of the shaft has an outside diameter with a value of between twelve millimeters and twenty four millimeters.
However, Akei discloses in [154] that the size of the system can be changed without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. As such, it is clear that the size of the cylinder bore can be selected based on the application of the system. Furthermore, the eccentric shaft 160 is fitted inside the cylinder bore via the roller bearings as shown in fig. 2. As such, it is also clear that the shaft diameter will be smaller than that of the cylinder bore. As such, diameters the cylinder bore and the eccentric portion of the crankshaft is a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Akei to have the cylindrical bore of the movable scroll member with an inside diameter with a value of between nineteen millimeters and eighty millimeters and the eccentric portion of the shaft with an outside diameter with a value of between twelve millimeters and sixty millimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akei combined with Ueno as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wardle.
Regarding claim 25, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 16, wherein the shaft rotates at an angular speed (operation of the pump), but does not explicitly disclose which Wardle discloses:
the drive bearing has a mean diameter sized such that the ndm factor of the bearing is no greater than three hundred thousand (col. 5, lines 20-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the bearing sized as disclosed by Wardle for the device of Akei combined with Ueno so as to provide for the lubrication thereof by vaporizing the liquid refrigerant at a point proximate the bearing to be lubricated (col. 1; lines 10-12; Wardle).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akei as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2021/0108836 to Furugaki et al (Furugaki).
Regarding claim 26, Akei discloses the compressor as recited in claim 5, but does not disclose which Furugaki discloses:
the outer circumferential surface of the eccentric portion of the shaft has a surface roughness with an Ra value of no greater than one tenth of a micrometer (0.1 pm) (Abstract; [4], [8]-[9], [64]-[67], [74]-[75]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the roughness of bearings as disclosed by Furugaki in the bearings of system of Akei so as to increase the efficiency of the compressor by decreasing the friction ([64]-[67], [74]-[75]; Furugaki).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akei combined with Ueno as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Furugaki.
Regarding claim 24, Akei combined with Ueno discloses the compressor as recited in claim 21, but does not disclose which Furugaki discloses:
the outer circumferential surface of the eccentric portion of the shaft has a surface roughness with an Ra value of no greater than one tenth of a micrometer (0.1 pm) (Abstract; [4], [8]-[9], [64]-[67], [74]-[75]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the roughness of bearings as disclosed by Furugaki in the bearings of system of Akei so as to increase the efficiency of the compressor by decreasing the friction ([64]-[67], [74]-[75]; Furugaki).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Akei does not disclose “a quantity of a solution formed of refrigerant and oil disposed within the housing, the solution being directed into the drive bearing to lubricate the at least one row of rolling elements” as required by claim 1. However, the office respectfully disagrees. The claim is directed to a scroll compressor. All of the structural limitations of claim 1 are met by Akei as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. The limitation “a quantity of a solution formed of refrigerant and oil disposed within the housing, the solution being directed into the drive bearing to lubricate the at least one row of rolling elements” is merely how the applicant is intending to use the compressor i.e. with oil and refrigerant. And as such, it does not distinguish the structure of the compressor from that of the prior art. Therefore, the claim stand rejected.
Applicant further argues that Akei does not disclose the limitations of claim 5. As disclosed above 172A is also a roller bearing that includes an outer ring disposed within the bore of the cylindrical hub and the at least one row of rolling elements roll directly against an outer circumferential surface of the eccentric portion of the shaft (fig. 2). As such, the claim limitation is met.
Applicant further argues that Akei combined with Wardle does not disclose the limitations of amended claim 15. However, the office respectfully disagrees. the term “an intended angular speed” is a broad term that includes a lift off speed. If the compressor is just turned on, the intention may be to get it to lift off speed. As such, given BRI to the claim, the limitation is met.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 26-27 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Furugaki.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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 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 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.
/DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746