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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 18th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on July 21st, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action mailed on May 27th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1 & 12 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Consequently, Claims 1-17 still 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 was 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 these issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed July 21st, 2026, with respect to the previous prior art rejections of Claims 1-17 using Medich have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, the Applicant alleges that the amendments made to Claims 1 & 12 overcome the teachings of Medich. The Examiner agrees. Therefore, the previous prior art rejections using Kohler have been withdrawn.
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) 1-3, 5-14, & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102013100014 to Kohler (attached and described within a previous office action) in view of US 2,946,503 to Thompson.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 12, and with particular reference to Figure 3 shown immediately above (annotated by the Examiner, for clarity), Kohler discloses:
1. An 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 the crank having a centric bearing (16), and wherein a cylinder axis being a longitudinal symmetry axis of the cylinder (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity); extends through the eccentric bearing of the crank when a piston stroke of the piston is at bottom dead center or top dead center (apparent from Fig. 3, which depicts a bottom dead center position, wherein the cylinder axis clearly extends through eccentric bearing 14, as claimed), the cylinder axis being perpendicular to a rotation axis of the crank (apparent in Fig. 3 above).
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: an 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 the crank having a centric bearing (16), and wherein a cylinder axis being a longitudinal symmetry axis of the cylinder (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity) extends through the eccentric bearing of the crank when a piston stroke of the piston is at bottom dead center or top dead center (apparent from Fig. 3, which depicts a bottom dead center position, wherein the cylinder axis clearly extends through eccentric bearing 14, as claimed); and wherein the crank (13) comprises a receptacle for the centric bearing and a receptacle for the eccentric bearing (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 perpendicular to the rotation axis of the crank 13).
While Medich discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose that the cylinder axis extends “through the centric bearing of the crank”, as claimed.
However, Thompson discloses another air compressor arrangement (Fig. 2) similar Medich, and which specifically discloses the use of a bent/angled connecting rod 42 “so that the bearing 46 for wrist pin 48 and bearing 32 for crankpin 34 are in substantial vertical alignment. As a result, the overall depth requirements for the crankcase housing is considerably reduced” (col. 2, lines 14-21). In other words, Thompson provides clear motivation to those of skill in the art to utilize a bent/angled connecting rod in an air compressor arrangement in order to 1) provide a vertical alignment between the piston/cylinder and the bearings inside the crank and 2) reduce overall compressor housing depth. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an air compressor with reduced overall housing depth, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Thompson in combination with those seen in Medich 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 Medich’s connecting rod structure with the bent connecting rod structure taught in Thompson (thereby resulting in an equally shifted location for the cylinder 2 to now vertically align with crank 13) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a smaller overall air compressor footprint due to the now-reduced overall housing depth (as taught in Thompson).
In regards to Claim 2, Medich’s cylinder axis runs through an axis of symmetry of the centric bearing of the crank (this results from the combination noted above; via the teachings of Thompson, the cylinder axis of Medich would now run vertically aligned with the crank 13 due to the bent connecting rod and shifted cylinder location).
In regards to Claim 3, Medich’s 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 (this results from the combination noted above; via the teachings of Thompson, the cylinder axis of Medich would now run vertically aligned with the crank 13 due to the bent connecting rod and shifted cylinder location).
In regards to Claims 5 & 14, Medich’s cylinder axis extends through a gearwheel (i.e. main body) of the gear (12) via which crank (13) is coupled to the drive (11) (this results from the combination noted above; via the teachings of Thompson, the cylinder axis of Medich would now run vertically through the gear 12 due to the bent connecting rod and shifted cylinder location).
In regards to Claim 6, Medich’s connecting rod is angled or bent (this results from the combination noted above; via the teachings of Thompson, as noted above).
In regards to Claim 7, Medich’s connecting rod is angled or bent such that the cylinder axis extends at least partially outside the connecting rod (this results from the combination noted above; via the teachings of Thompson, as noted above).
In regards to Claim 8, Medich’s 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, see Claim 12 above.
In regards to Claim 11, see Claim 12 above.
In regards to Claim 13, the drive is an electric motor (para. 36).
In regards to Claim 16, Medich’s connecting rod is angled and bent (apparent in Fig. 3 above).
In regards to Claim 17, Medich’s connecting rod is angled and bent such that the cylinder axis extends at least partially outside the connecting rod (apparent in Fig. 3 above).
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) 4 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medich-Thompson (applied above) in view of DE 102013100014 to Kohler (attached to previous office action) and as evidenced by Thomas (attached herein).
In regards to Claims 4 & 15, Medich-Thompson discloses the air compressor of claim 1, but does not further disclose that the centric bearing and/or the eccentric bearing comprises a ball bearing, as claimed (in this case, Medich does not specify any bearing type).
However, with particular reference to Figure 2, Kohler discloses yet another 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 (see previous office action for bearing location) and to the drive via a gear (8a) and having a centric bearing (see previous office action for bearing location). Additionally, Kohler discloses that the centric bearing or the eccentric bearing comprises a ball bearing (ball bearings are apparent in Fig. 2). Thomas (NPL attached herein) provides clear evidence that ball bearings are well known in the art for their versatility, high efficiency, and low friction, in that they have a very small contact area with the load that provides optimum operational efficiency (https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/benefits-of-ball-bearings-in-various-industries/). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an air compressor capable of high efficiency and smooth rotation, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Kohler in combination with those seen in Medich 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 generic bearings in Medich with the ball bearing type taught in Kohler in order to obtain predictable results; those results being smoother, higher speed operation.
Conclusion
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