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 April 22nd, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on January 12th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-17 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.
Drawings
Figure 1 was objected to for minor informalities. Applicant has provided corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) as required in reply to the Office action, thereby obviating this objection.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure was objected to because it contained legal phraseology therein (“comprising”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure in accordance with MPEP § 608.01(b) has been provided by Applicant, rendering this objection moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, rendering the objections moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-17 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 these issues.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12, line 9 recites the limitation “the crank for the air compressor”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear how this limitation is further limiting the invention recited in Claim 12. As far as the examiner understands the invention, it appears that this limitation simply repeats previously recited elements without providing any further limitation, 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 the limitation as not further limiting the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed April 22nd, 2026, with respect to the previous prior art rejections of Claims 1-11 & 13-17 using Kohler have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, the Applicant alleges that the amendments made to Claim 1 overcome the teachings of Kohler. The Examiner agrees. Therefore, the previous prior art rejections using Kohler have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 22nd, 2026 in regards to the previous prior art rejections using Medich have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s responses can be seen below.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “figures 1 (state of the art) and 2 - 3 of the application clearly show that the cylinder axis 34 - the axis along which the gas-compression force Fg acts - is the symmetry axis of the working cylinder and passes centrally through the piston” and “the examiner's interpretation of "any axis through the cylinder" is therefore inconsistent with the skilled persons understanding and the applicant's disclosure”, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant ultimately alleges that the limitation “a cylinder axis” in Claim 1 requires “the symmetry axis of the working cylinder that passes centrally through the piston”. Respectfully, this assertion is not well taken because it attempts to import limitations into the claim from the specification, which is improper (see MPEP 2111). In this case, Applicant has applied an unreasonably narrow interpretation to the limitation in question. In actuality, there is nothing within the claim language requiring “a cylinder axis” to be defined as “the symmetry axis of the working cylinder that passes centrally through the piston”, as argued by Applicant. In support of Applicant’s position, Applicant points to the originally filed specification. However, the Examiner has thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s originally-filed specification and finds that there are no special definitions provided for the phase “a cylinder axis” that would require the interpretation being argued by Applicant. Absent such a special definition, it is improper to import such a limitation into the claim from the specification. As noted in MPEP 2111(II), “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”. In other words, Applicant’s assertions regarding the limitation “a cylinder axis” do not come from the originally filed specification, but instead, appear to be nothing more than Applicant’s own conjecture. Simply put, there is nothing in the specification requiring the particular definition being argued by Applicant. Instead, in this instance, it is proper to give the limitation its plain and ordinary meaning, which is simply an axis extending through the cylinder. The direction and/or extent of this axis are not defined nor required by the recited claim language. Given all of these facts, the examiner respectfully maintains that the interpretation applied by the Examiner in the previous office action (i.e. any axis extending through the cylinder) is, in fact, proper and aligns with the requirements set forth in MPEP 2111. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that Applicant’s new language in amended Claim 1 still does not require the particular definition being argued by Applicant. Amended Claim 1 simply requires the axis of the cylinder to be perpendicular to another axis. It is still not required to be the axis of symmetry (or central axis or longitudinal axis) of the cylinder. Therefore, in the spirit of expeditious prosecution, the Examiner would strongly suggest that Applicant positively recite the features being argued. In this case, amending Claims 1 & 12 and to instead recite “a longitudinal axis of the cylinder” would positively require the arrangement being argued by Applicant, and would overcome the teachings of Medich. However, absent such language being positively recited in the claim, Medich will continue to read upon Applicant’s claimed invention.
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 to previous office action).
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. 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 (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 when a piston stroke of the piston is at bottom dead center 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), 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 (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 when a piston stroke of the piston is at bottom dead center 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 the crank (13) for the compressed-air compressor (see 112b rejection above, as this limitation is not further limiting), 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 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 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 (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 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
Applicant's amendments filed April 22nd, 2026 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.
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