DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on December 3, 2025. Applicant has amended Claims 11 – 20. Claims 11 – 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous 112b rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. New 112b rejections are presented below, necessitated by amendment.
With regards to the 102 rejection over Tsutomu, applicant argues that Tsutomu mounts the compressor to the engine, not the vehicle chassis. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merriam-Webster defines chassis as “the supporting frame of a structure”. The engine is part of a vehicle (as per abstract of Tsutomu) and acts as the supporting structure of the compressor, thereby meeting the requirements of a vehicle chassis under broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, the term chassis is not limited solely to the frame. For example, a “rolling chassis” includes both the vehicle frame and the engine, transmission, drive shaft, and suspension. Applicant goes on to argue that the angled bracket of Tsutomu does not direct the compressor in any direction during an accident-induced displacement. Examiner directs applicant to MPEP 2114 - “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Furthermore, “[f]unctional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function”. In the system shown in Tsutomu, the angled bracket is capable of directing the compressor in a direction during an accident-induced displacement. While the compressor is fixed in a certain position to the bracket, an accident could conceivably still displace the compressor such that it slides along a direction of the incline of the angled bracket. Previous art rejections stand.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20, Line 6 recites a holder. Line 4 of the same claim already introduced a holder, making the metes and bounds of the claim unascertainable because it is unclear whether the second instance requires a new holder or is meant to refer back to the holder in Line 4. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as Line 6 reading the holder.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 11 – 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsutomu et al. (hereafter “Tsutomu” – JP H05-040006 U).
With regards to Claim 11:
Tsutomu discloses a bearing assembly (Figures 1, 2) of a refrigerant compressor (compressor 4) on a chassis of a motor vehicle (engine 1), comprising:
a holder (bracket 7) configured to mount the refrigerant compressor on the chassis, wherein the holder includes a first sliding incline (inclined surface 7a) that directs the refrigerant compressor in a direction during an accident-induced displacement of the refrigerant compressor (this is regarded as functional language which imparts no additional structure to the claim – the holder and compressor of Tsutomu, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, are configured to allow the compressor to slide along the inclined surface in a targeted manner as disclosed in Paragraph 11, thus being capable of being steerable in the event of an accident).
With regards to Claim 12:
Tsutomu discloses the first sliding incline and the direction run diagonally to the vehicle longitudinal direction from the front bottom to the rear top (as shown in Figures 1 and 2, the inclined surface 7a runs diagonally – given that there is no frame of reference for a vehicle longitudinal direction recited, any direction, including that shown in Tsutomu qualifies as running diagonally under BRI).
With regards to Claim 13:
Tsutomu discloses the holder includes a first holder element (bolts 6) with the first sliding incline on a compressor side, and wherein the first holder element is displaceable together with the refrigerant compressor (see Figures 1, 2, bracket 7 is a holder element on the compressor side and bolts are capable of being displaced with the compressor during the accident-induced displacement).
With regards to Claim 20:
Tsutomu discloses a motor vehicle (Figures 1, 2, Paragraph 1), comprising:
a chassis (engine 1);
a refrigerant compressor (compressor 4); and
a bearing assembly (bolts 6, inclined surface 7a, grooves 7b) comprising a holder (bracket 7) configured to mount the refrigerant compressor on the chassis, wherein the bearing assembly includes:
a holder (bracket 7) configured to mount the refrigerant compressor on the chassis, wherein the holder includes a first sliding incline (inclined surface 7a) configured to direct the refrigerant compressor along the incline in a direction during an accident-induced displacement of the refrigerant compressor (this is regarded as functional language which imparts no additional structure to the claim – the holder and compressor of Tsutomu, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, are configured to allow the compressor to slide along the inclined surface in a targeted manner as disclosed in Paragraph 11, thus being capable of being steerable in the event of an accident).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 – 19 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights