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 .
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on February 17th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 18th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1, 3-6, & 8-10 have been amended and Claim 7 has been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-6 & 8-10 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Drawings
The drawings were objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Applicant has provided corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) as required in reply to the Office action rendering this objection moot.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure was objected to because it contained legal phraseology therein. Applicant has provided a corrected abstract of the disclosure as required, rendering this objection moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome these issues, rendering the objections moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 were 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. Applicant’s amendments have remedied some of these issues, but issues remain.
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 1-6 & 8-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “pie-slice-shaped”; this limitation continues to render the claim indefinite because 1) this phrasing has not been particularly defined in Applicant’s specification and 2) there is no universally accepted meaning of this phrase/shape. In particular, the exact shape being required of this language cannot be discerned because Applicant’s specification provides no particular definition for such an arrangement and there exists no universally accepted shape for the phrase “pie-slice-shaped”. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the required structure of the invention. For examination purposes herein, this limitation is interpreted as simply “curved”.
Claim 6 recites “point-symmetrically opposite”; this renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of “point-symmetrically opposite” is not clear. Applicant’s specification generally uses this same phrasing, but offers no definition or clarity on its meaning. Applicant’s supplied figure appears to merely depicts one of the weight 26 being opposite from the piston linkage opening 16, and as such, the examiner has interpreted “point-symmetrically opposite” as simply “opposite”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the linkage" in line 3 and “the point-symmetrical position" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, “the linkage” has been interpreted herein as “a linkage”, and “the point-symmetrical position” has been interpreted as “a point-symmetrical position”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “and/or is arranged around this position symmetrically with respect to the point-symmetrical position”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. First, it is not clear what “this position” refers to, as there is no previously defined “position” in the claims. Second, it is not clear what is meant by “around”. In this instance, “around” can mean “surrounding” or it can mean “nearby”. Which particular definition is required by the claim is not made clear by the specification or claim language. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as requiring the at least one balancing weight be arranged near a point-symmetrical position.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the point-symmetrical position" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Claim 6 is interpreted as requiring the at least one balancing weight to be arranged opposite, or nearby, the piston linkage.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s responses can be seen below.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “The term 'pie-slice-shaped' is used in the specification and is illustrated in the drawings to denote a sector-like recess having radially extending side boundaries and a curved outer boundary, as shown for recess (20) in FIG. 1. This configuration is illustrated in FIG. 1 and provides a clear structural definition of the claimed recess. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this term as referring to the illustrated sector-like configuration. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are reasonably certain”, the examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would understand the claimed term “pie-slice-shaped” to mean “a sector-like recess having radially extending side boundaries and a curved outer boundary, as shown for recess (20) in FIG. 1”. Respectfully, this is not well taken because Applicant’s argument improperly 1) attempts to import limitations into the claim language from the specification (see MPEP 2111.01(II)) and 2) attempts to import Applicant’s own interpretation of Figure 1 into the claim language. In this instance, Applicant’s specification does not define the term “pie-slice-shaped” in any particular manner, and as such, there is no special definition provided for the term. Applicant’s assertion that the term “pie-slice-shaped” is “used in the specification” certainly does not remedy this. Furthermore, the phrase “pie-slice-shaped” has no universally accepted plain meaning (see MPEP 2111.01(I))) that can be applied by those of ordinary skill in the art. Stated another way, there is no universally accepted shape for all slices of pie, and thus, it is improper to define a claimed element of the invention using a fluctuating or nonstandard shape/descriptor. As such, it becomes impossible to know what shapes in existence qualify as “pie-slice-shaped” and which shapes in existence do not. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, and as such, the claims remain indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has intpereted “pie-slice-shaped” as simply “curved”.
In the spirit of expeditious prosecution, and given the lack of any special definition in the originally filed specification, the Examiner strongly recommends that Applicant instead consider geometrically defining the shape of the at least one recess depicted within originally-filed Figure 1. For example, Applicant might define the at least one recess as “having a shape formed by two straight sides intersected by a radially outer curved side and by a radially inner curved side”, or similarly, “having a shape that narrows from a radially outer curved portion to a radially inner curved portion”. In these examples, the terms “straight”, “radially outer”, “radially inner”, “curved”, and “narrows” are all clearly depicted in Figure 1 and have well understood plain (i.e. geometric) meanings. This language contrasts sharply with Applicant’s attempt to define a shape using a nonstandard piece of food.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “Medici discloses a cylindrical counterweight embedded in a mounting hole. Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Medici's mounting hole to constitute a "recess," Medici does not disclose that "the at least one recess (20) is pie-slice-shaped and is equipped with latching elements (22, 24)." A cylindrical mounting hole is not a "pie-slice- shaped" recess and is not described as being equipped with "latching elements (22, 24)."
Cameron discloses balancing balls retained in annular channels. Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Cameron to disclose a snap-fit retention of a balancing weight, Cameron does not disclose that the balancing weight "is snap-fitted in at least one recess (20) of the gearwheel (10)" where "the at least one recess (20) is pie-slice-shaped and is equipped with latching elements (22, 24)." An annular channel is not a "pie-slice-shaped" recess as required by claim 1. Thus, even assuming arguendo that Medici discloses a recess and that Cameron discloses a snap-fit concept, neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the specific configuration in which "the at least one balancing weight (26) is snap-fitted in at least one recess (20) of the gearwheel (10)" and in which "the at least one recess (20) is pie-slice-shaped and is equipped with latching elements (22, 24).", the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant is directed to the 112(b) rejections above, which detail why the phrase “pie-slice-shaped” remains indefinite. Furthermore, Applicant is directed to the updated rejections below, which detail exactly why the Medici-Cameron combination continues to disclose Applicant’s invention, as amended.
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) 1-8 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 2016717788 to Medici (attached herein with machine translation) in view of US 5,111,713 to Cameron et al.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-4, Medici discloses:
1. A compressed-air supply system (Fig. 1; para. 2; “electric air pump”) for supplying air for tires of a motor vehicle (para. 5; “The gas discharged by the piston is discharged from the air inlet of the outer shell to inflate the air filling equipment”), comprising a compressor (1-15) having an electric motor (11) for driving a compressor unit of the compressor (para. 36), wherein the compressor unit has a piston (3) guided in a cylinder (2), the piston being coupled to the electric motor via a gearing (12, 13) including a gearwheel (13), wherein the gearwheel (13), which is coupled eccentrically to the piston (via eccentric pin 14), is provided with at least one balancing weight (15), wherein the at least one balancing weight is fitted in at least one recess (131) of the gearwheel (13) (Figs. 3-4; “A counterweight 15 is also provided on the end face of the driven gear 13. The counterweight 15 is cylindrical and is fixed to the driven gear 13 by embedding. That is, a mounting hole 131 is first provided on the end face of the driven gear 13, and then the counterweight 15 is embedded into the mounting hole 131”); and wherein the at least one recess is pie-slice-shaped (see the 112b rejection above; recess 131 is curved)
While Medici discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed invention, he does not specify that his “embedding” of the balancing weight 15 into the gearwheel 13 constitutes a “snap-fit” connection, as claimed, nor does he disclose that the at least one recess 131 is “equipped with latching elements”, as claimed.
However, Cameron et al. (Cameron) discloses another rotary unit (10; Fig. 1) similar to a rotating gearwheel, and which likewise requires precise dynamic balancing to achieve a dynamically balanced condition (col. 1, lines 4-9). Cameron discloses “There is a need for a dynamically balanced rotary unit with an improved balance connection method which eliminates the need for damping liquids or adhesives; achieves balancing more simply and rapidly and with more precision than means heretofore proposed” (col. 1, lines 56-60). To achieve this, Cameron discloses the use of a plurality of balls/weights 17 that are snap-fit into a recess (16) of the rotary unit via latching elements (13a, 20) in order to achieve precise dynamic balancing (col. 1, line 65 – col. 3, line 28). In these disclosures, Cameron makes clear that simplified mounting of balancing weights can be achieved through a snap-fit/latched connection. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a gearwheel with simplified balancing weight attachment, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Cameron in combination with those seen in Medici 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 Medici’s balancing weight 15 and corresponding recess 131 with the spherical weight shape and associated snap-fit structure (i.e. latching elements/lips 13a, 20) of Medici in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a simplified balance weight assembly structure that allows a user to more easily mount/remove the weight 15 as needed.
In regards to Claims 2-3, Medici as modified by Cameron results in the at least one balancing weight being a spherical ball/bearing (via Cameron’s teachings; see Claim 1 above).
In regards to Claim 4, Medici does not disclose the use of a three balancing weights, as claimed (Medici only depicts one balance weight).
However, Cameron specifically discloses the well-known use of a plurality of spherical balls/weights, as needed, each of which can be snap-fit to the rotary unit 10 in order to provide precise dynamic balancing all around the rotary unit (multiple balancing weights shown in Fig. 1, for example). Therefore, given Cameron’s clear disclosure, 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 duplicated Medici’s singular weight/recess (15, 131) to provide multiple (i.e. three) weights/recesses along the other regions of the gearwheel 13, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (i.e. balancing weights/recesses) involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to Claim 5, Medici discloses that the at least one balancing weight (15) is arranged opposite a linkage (14) of the piston (10) with respect to a rotational axis of the gearwheel (13) (apparent in Figs. 3 & 4).
In regards to Claim 6, Medici discloses that the at least one balancing weight (15) is arranged point-symmetrically opposite the linkage (14) of the piston (apparent in Figs. 3 & 4).
In regards to Claim 8, Medici discloses that a respective recess (131) is provided per balancing weight (15) (Fig. 4), in which recess the at least one balancing weight is held in a latching manner (this naturally results via the combination with Cameron, via the snap-fit (i.e. latching) connection structure taught in Cameron; see Claim 1 above).
In regards to Claim 10, Medici discloses that the gearwheel (13) has ribs (clearly shown at lead line 13 in Fig. 4) which delimit the at least one recess (131) and rise (i.e. radiate) from an end face (i.e. an outer end face of the central hub, as shown in Fig. 4) of the gearwheel (13).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medici-Cameron as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2020/0158099 to Kaung.
In regards to Claim 9, Medici as modified by Cameron discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the latching elements (i.e. lips 13a, 20 from Cameron) for the at least one balancing weight are integrally connected to the gearwheel (this results from the combination; see Claim 1 above). However, Medici fails to further disclose that the gearwheel (3) consists of plastics material, as claimed.
However, Kuang discloses yet another air compressor assembly (Fig. 1) very similar in arrangement to that of Medici, and which specifically discloses the use of plastic material for the majority of the air compressor assembly (including the gearwheel 30; Fig. 1) for the purpose of reducing weight, simplifying production, saving on material/labor costs (see Abstract & paras. 10, 27). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an air compressor assembly having much lighter overall weight and simplified/cheaper manufacturing, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Kuang in combination with those seen in Medici-Cameron 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 the gearwheel 3 of Medici to be made of plastic (as taught in Kuang) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an air compressor assembly having much lighter overall weight and simplified/cheaper manufacturing.
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 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