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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology therein (“comprising”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-17 all recite the phrasings “A compressed-air compressor” and/or “The compressed-air compressor”; these should all read “An air compressor” or “The air compressor” in all instances.
Claim 1, line 8 should read “piston is at dead center or top dead center.”
Claim 3, line 4 should read “stroke of the piston is at dead center or top dead center.”
Claim 5, line 4 should read “via which the crank is coupled to the drive.”
Claim 8, line 3 should read “and in that the at least one balance weight”
Claim 9, line 6 should read “an axis of rotation (52) of the crank (30).”
Claim 12, line 8 should read “dead center or top dead center; and,”
Claim 12, line 13 should read “an axis of rotation (52) of the crank (30).”
Claim 14, line 2 should read “via which the crank is”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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, line 5 recite the limitation “and having a centric bearing (36)”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which previous element is being referred to. In other words, it is not made clear which element in claim 1 is the element “having a centric bearing (36)”. As currently recited, it could be the crank, the connecting rod, or the gear. Which element is referred to is not made clear, and thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the claim as requiring the crank to have the centric bearing.
Claim 1, line 7 recites the limitation “with the connecting rod (28)”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear how (or if) this limitation is further defining the limitation preceding it. In this instance, the previous limitation makes clear that the cylinder axis extends through the centric and eccentric bearings. However, the addition of “with the connecting rod (28)” renders the claim scope unclear because it is not clear if the cylinder axis is also passing through the connecting rod or not. Similarly, it is not clear if the cylinder axis is being further defined by the connecting rod or not. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the claim as simply requiring the cylinder axis to extend through the centric and eccentric bearings.
Claim 3, lines 3-4 recite “a piston stroke”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “piston stroke” previously recited in claim 1 or 2) introducing another “piston stroke” altogether. The end of Claim 3 appears to imply that the second interpretation is most likely desired by Applicant, but the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the balancing weight" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “at least one balancing weight” previously recited or 2) introducing another “balancing weight” altogether. As far as the examiner understand the invention, it appears that the first interpretation is most likely desired by Applicant, but the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 9, lines 2-3 recite the limitations “a centric bearing” and “an eccentric bearing”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether these limitations are 1) attempting to refer back to the “centric bearing” and “eccentric bearing” previously recited in claim 1 or 2) introducing new bearings altogether. As far as the examiner understands the invention, it appears that the first interpretation is most likely desired by Applicant, but the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 11, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the compressed-air compressor with a crank according to claim 9”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because Claim 9 is directed simply to a crank. Claim 9 is not directed to a “compressed-air compressor with a crank” as recited. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has simply interpreted Claim 11 as reading “the crank according to claim 9”.
Claim 12, line 5 recite the limitation “and having a centric bearing (36)”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which previous element is being referred to. In other words, it is not made clear which element in claim 12 is the element “having a centric bearing (36)”. As currently recited, it could be the crank, the connecting rod, or the gear. Which element is referred to is not made clear, and thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the claim as requiring the crank to have the centric bearing.
Claim 12, line 7 recites the limitation “with the connecting rod (28)”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear how (or if) this limitation is further defining the limitation preceding it. In this instance, the previous limitation makes clear that the cylinder axis extends through the centric and eccentric bearings. However, the addition of “with the connecting rod (28)” renders the claim scope unclear because it is not clear if the cylinder axis is also passing through the connecting rod or not. Similarly, it is not clear if the cylinder axis is being further defined by the connecting rod or not. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the claim as simply requiring the cylinder axis to extend through the centric and eccentric bearings.
Claim 12, line 9 recites the limitation “a crank”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear how many cranks are being required in Claim 12. In this case, line 3 of Claim 12 already recites “a crank”. As such, when line 9 again recites “a crank”, it becomes unclear whether one crank or two cranks are being positively required in the invention. As far as the examiner understands the invention, it appears that only a single crank is disclosed as being present in the invention, but the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted Claim 12 as requiring one crank, and thus, line 9 is referring back to the previously recited “crank” of line 3.
Claim 15, lines 1-2 recite “the centric bearing and the eccentric bearing comprises a ball bearing”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not made clear how many ball bearings are required in the invention. In this instance, the phrasing does not make clear whether 1) the centric bearing and the eccentric bearing respectively comprise a ball bearing (i.e. at least two ball bearings are required) or 2) the centric bearing and the eccentric bearing, as a whole, comprises a ball bearing (i.e. at least one ball bearing is required). As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has applied the second interpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 201671788 to Medich (attached herein with machine translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 3 shown immediately above (annotated by the Examiner, for clarity), Kohler discloses:
1. A compressed-air compressor (Fig. 3; para. 2; “electric air pump”) comprising a drive (11) for driving a compressor device (1-10, 12-15) (para. 36), the compressor device having a piston (3, 10) guided in a cylinder (2) and a crank (13), the crank (13) being coupled to a connecting rod (10) of the piston (Fig. 3) via an eccentric bearing (14) and to the drive via a gear (12) and having a centric bearing (16), and wherein a cylinder axis (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity; Applicant should note that the limitation “cylinder axis” is so broad that it encompasses any axis that extends through the cylinder, regardless of its direction or extent) extends both through the centric bearing of the crank and through the eccentric hearing of the crank with the connecting rod when a piston stroke of the piston is at the bottom or top dead center (apparent from Fig. 3; in this case, Fig. 3 depicts a bottom dead center position, and the cylinder axis clearly extends through both bearings, as claimed).
12. A tire sealing and/or tire inflating device (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 compressed-air compressor (1-15) having a drive (11) for driving a compressor device (1-10, 12-15), the compressor device having a piston (3, 10) guided in a cylinder (2) and a crank (13), the crank (13) being coupled to a connecting rod (10) of the piston (Fig. 3) via an eccentric bearing (14) and to the drive via a gear (12) and having a centric bearing (16), and wherein a cylinder axis (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity; Applicant should note that the limitation “cylinder axis” is so broad that it encompasses any axis that extends through the cylinder, regardless of its direction or extent) extends both through the centric bearing of the crank and through the eccentric bearing of the crank with the connecting rod when a piston stroke of the piston is at the bottom or top dead center (apparent from Fig. 3; in this case, Fig. 3 depicts a bottom dead center position, and the cylinder axis clearly extends through both bearings, as claimed); and a crank (13) for the compressed-air compressor, wherein the crank (13) comprises a receptacle for the centric bearing and a receptacle for the eccentric bearing of the connecting rod (receptacles/openings that receive the two bearings are apparent in Fig. 3), and wherein the receptacle for the centric bearing and the receptacle for the eccentric bearing are arranged with the connecting rod in a plane perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the crank (apparent in Fig. 3; a plane running through the two bearings (14, 16) extends coextensively along the cylinder axis, and thus, extends perpendicular to the rotation axis of the crank 13).
In regards to Claim 2, the cylinder axis runs through an axis of symmetry of the centric bearing of the crank (apparent in Fig. 3 above, as annotated by the examiner).
In regards to Claim 3, the cylinder axis runs through an axis of symmetry of the eccentric bearing of the crank with the connecting rod when a piston stroke of the piston is at the bottom or top dead center (apparent in Fig. 3 above, as annotated by the examiner).
In regards to Claim 5, the cylinder axis extends through a gearwheel (i.e. main body) of the gear (12) via which crank (13) is coupled to the drive (11) (apparent from Fig. 3 above, as annotated by the Examiner).
In regards to Claim 6, the connecting rod is angled or bent (apparent in Fig. 3, adjacent to lead line 10).
In regards to Claim 7, the connecting rod is angled or bent such that the cylinder axis extends at least partially outside the connecting rod (apparent in Fig. 3 above, as annotated by the examiner; see also Claim 6 above).
In regards to Claim 8, the crank (13) comprises at least one balancing weight (15; Figs. 3-4), and in that the balancing weight (15) is the balancing weight (15) arranged in a plane perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the crank (i.e. the plane of the weight 15 that extends coextensively along the cylinder axis), said plane comprising the cylinder axis (apparent from Fig. 3 above).
In regards to Claim 9, see Claim 12 above.
In regards to Claim 10, Medich discloses a tire sealing and/or tire inflating device (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 the compressed-air compressor of claim 1 (Fig. 3 above).
In regards to Claim 11, see Claim 10 above.
In regards to Claim 13, the drive is an electric motor (para. 36).
In regards to Claim 14, the cylinder axis extends through an axis of symmetry (111) of the gearwheel (i.e. main body) of the gear (12), via which crank (13) is coupled to the drive (11).
In regards to Claim 16, the connecting rod is angled and bent (apparent in Fig. 3 above; see also Claim 6 above).
In regards to Claim 17, the connecting rod is angled and bent such that the cylinder axis extends at least partially outside the connecting rod (apparent in Fig. 3 above, as annotated by the examiner; see also Claim 6 above).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10, 13, & 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102013100014 to Kohler (attached herein with machine translation).
PNG
media_image2.png
633
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 2 shown immediately above (annotated by the Examiner, for clarity), Kohler discloses:
1. A compressed-air compressor (“piston compressor”; para. 1) comprising a drive (7) for driving a compressor device (1), the compressor device (1) having a piston (5, 9) guided in a cylinder (3) and a crank (8b), the crank (8b) being coupled to a connecting rod (9) of the piston (Fig. 2) via an eccentric bearing (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity) and to the drive via a gear (8a) and having a centric bearing (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity), and wherein a cylinder axis (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity; Applicant should note that the limitation “cylinder axis” is so broad that it encompasses any axis that extends through the cylinder, regardless of its direction or extent) extends both through the centric bearing of the crank and through the eccentric hearing of the crank with the connecting rod when a piston stroke of the piston is at the bottom or top dead center (apparent from Fig. 2; in this case, Fig. 2 depicts a top dead center position, and the cylinder axis clearly extends through both bearings, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 2, the cylinder axis runs through an axis of symmetry of the centric bearing of the crank (apparent in Fig. 2 above, as annotated by the examiner).
In regards to Claim 3, the cylinder axis runs through an axis of symmetry of the eccentric bearing of the crank with the connecting rod when a piston stroke of the piston is at the bottom or top dead center (apparent in Fig. 2 above, as annotated by the examiner).
In regards to Claim 4, the centric bearing or the eccentric bearing comprises a ball bearing (ball bearings are apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 6, the connecting rod is angled or bent (apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 7, the connecting rod is angled or bent such that the cylinder axis extends at least partially outside the connecting rod (apparent in Fig. 2 above, as annotated by the examiner).
In regards to Claim 10, Kohler discloses a tire sealing and/or tire inflating device (para. 3), comprising the compressed-air compressor of claim 1 (Fig. 2 above).
In regards to Claim 13, the drive is an electric motor (para. 27).
In regards to Claim 15, the centric bearing and the eccentric bearing comprises a ball bearing (ball bearings are apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 16, the connecting rod is angled and bent (apparent in Fig. 2 above).
In regards to Claim 17, the connecting rod is angled and bent such that the cylinder axis extends at least partially outside the connecting rod (apparent in Fig. 2 above, as annotated by the examiner).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See also US 2,946,503 to Thompson, who discloses another air compressor with a similar crank arrangement.
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