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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/9/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 should be amended to -than [[the]] an inner diameter of the first hole-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-12 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 9.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations
Driving mechanism (claim 1)
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder
Mechanism (Driving mechanism - claim 1)
coupled with functional language
Configured for driving the first scroll to rotate about a first rotation center…(Driving mechanism - claim 1)
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A hub portion and a flange portion (¶0043) (Driving mechanism - claim 1)
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 10 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim limitation “the rotation center of the first scroll in the axial direction” (emphasis added by the examiner) in line 3. The limitation is unclear because of limitation “driving the first scroll to rotate about a first rotation center” in line 10 of claim 1 (on which the claim depends) raising a question of if the first scroll has multiple rotation centers or only one (since multiple the multiple recitations of the rotation centers suggest there are multiple rotation centers for the first scroll). For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that the first scroll has only one rotation center however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 10.
Claim 1, 13-15, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 9010157 A1 to Hashizume et al. (Hashizume)(see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action).
Hashizume discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A compressor (figure 1 and 2), comprising:
a shell (2b);
first (15) and second (20) scrolls positioned in the shell (2b), the first scroll (15) having a first end plate (see end plate A in figure 1 below) and a first wrap (15a) extending from the first end plate (A in figure 1 below) toward the second scroll (20), the second scroll (20) having a second end plate (see the end plate B in figure 1 below) and a second wrap (20a) extending from the second end plate (B in figure 1 below) toward the first scroll (15), the first wrap (15a) and the second wrap (20a) being engaged with each other to define a compression chamber (31/32/33) therebetween, the second end plate (B in figure 1 below) of the second scroll (20) further having a mounting hub portion (21) extending in a direction away (directed away form first scroll 15) from the first scroll (15);
a driving mechanism (6/6a which includes a hub 6 with a flange 6a consisted with the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above) positioned on a side (on the back side of second scroll 20 away from first scroll 15 as shown in figure 1) of the second scroll (20) away from the first scroll (15) in the shell (2b), and configured for driving the first scroll (15) to rotate about a first rotation center (O1; page 3 of the translation ¶’s 3 and 5), such that the first scroll (15) drives the second scroll (20) to rotate about a second rotation center (02; page 3 of the translation ¶4); wherein the driving mechanism (6/6a) is supportively connected (see the bolt 16 which supportively connects the driving mechanism to the first scroll as shown in figure 1) to the first scroll (15); and
a shaft (4) positioned in the shell (2b) and fixedly mounted in the compressor (fixed to 2a as shown in figure 1), one end (end C as shown in figure 1 below) of the shaft (4) being provided with a first hole (22) in which the mounting hub portion (21) is accommodated (as shown in figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – figure 1 of Hashizume, annotated by the examiner
Regarding claim 13:
The compressor according to claim 1, further comprising:
a frame (2a) fixed to the shell (2b) at the side (see figure 1 which shows 2a on the far side of second scroll 20 from scroll 15) of the second scroll (20) away from the first scroll (15);
wherein the shaft (4) is fixed to the frame (2a) (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 14:
The compressor according to claim 13, wherein:
the driving mechanism (6/6a) comprises:
an accommodating hub portion (6) comprising opposite first (see end E in figure 1 above) and second (see end D in figure 1 above) ends and being rotatably mounted on the shaft (4) so that the driving mechanism (6/6a) is rotatably mounted onto the frame (2a); and
a first flange portion (6a) radially extending outward from the first end (see end E in figure 1 above),
wherein the driving mechanism (6/6a) is provided with an inner hole (see the inner hole F in figure 1 above) extending through the accommodating hub portion (6) and the first flange portion (6a), and is connected (connected via 16) with the first scroll (15) through the first flange portion (6a), and wherein the second end plate (B in figure 1 above) of the second scroll (20) is rotatably supported (supported at 30 and via 25 on 6a) on the first flange portion (6a).
Regarding claim 15:
The compressor according to claim 14, further comprising:
a second bearing (5) through which the first end (see end E in figure 1 above) is mounted on the shaft (4); and
a third bearing (19) through which the second end (see end D in figure 1 above) is mounted on (bearing 19 holds the scroll 15, flange 6a and second end of 6 on the shaft 4) the shaft (4).
Regarding claim 16:
The compressor according to claim 14, wherein:
the shaft (4) has a first step portion (see the step H in figure 1 above),
a hole wall (see the wall of 6 surrounding the hole F as shown in figure 1 above) of the inner hole (see the inner hole F in figure 1 above) of the accommodating hub portion (6) has a second step portion (see the step G in figure 1 above) facing the first step portion (see the step H in figure 1 above), and
the compressor further comprises a fourth bearing (7) provided between the first step portion (see the step H in figure 1 above) and the second step portion (see the step G in figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 17:
The compressor according to claim 14, wherein:
the frame (2a) comprises: a second sleeve (see the second sleeve I in figure 1 above) and a second flange portion (see the second flange portion J in figure 1 above) radially extending from the second sleeve (see the second sleeve I in figure 1 above) of the frame (2a), and the second end (see end D in figure 1 above) is supported on the second flange portion (see the second flange portion J in figure 1 above) of the frame (2a).
Regarding claim 19:
The compressor according to claim 14, further comprising:
a motor (12) comprising: a stator (10) fixed to the frame (2a), and a rotor (8) connected to the accommodating hub portion (6) of the driving mechanism (6/6a) by interference fit (“fixed fit” on page 3, ¶2 of the translation), so as to drive the driving mechanism (6/6a) and thus the first scroll (15) to rotate (see page 3 ¶’s 2 and 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9010157 A1 to Hashizume et al. (Hashizume) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5102316 A to Caillat et al. (Caillat).
Regarding claim 2:
Hashizume fails to disclose:
The compressor according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first sleeve being accommodated in the first hole and configured for accommodating the mounting hub portion therein.
Caillat teaches:
A compressor (10) that includes a first and second scroll (54 and 64). Further, the second scroll is connected to a shaft (30) that is connected to a motor (48). The reference indicates that second scroll (54) includes a mounting hub (portion of second scroll 54 surrounding shaft portion 32) that connects to the shaft (30). A first sleeve (58) and first bearing (60) are located between the shaft and the mounting hub.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashizume to further include a first sleeve and bearing between the first hole and the mounting hub portion of Hashizume as taught by Caillat for the purpose of reducing wear and tear on the shaft and the mounting hub during operation and therefore improve the performance and durability of the compressor.
Regarding claim 3:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 2 by Hashizume and Caillat:
The compressor according to claim 2, further comprising:
a first bearing (see the first bearing of Caillat incorporated into Hashizume) provided between the first sleeve and the mounting hub portion (see the first sleeve and first bearing of Caillat incorporated into Hashizume), wherein an outer diameter of the first sleeve is smaller than an inner diameter of the first hole (see the sleeve of Caillat incorporated into Hashizume which would have a smaller diameter that the inner diameter of the first hole in Hashizume in order to fit within the first hole).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9010157 A1 to Hashizume et al. (Hashizume) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20180223849 A1 to Doepker et al. (Doepker).
Regarding claim 22:
Hashizume fails to disclose:
The compressor according to claim 19, wherein: the motor is an axial-flux motor.
Doepker teaches:
A scroll compressor (figure 1) that includes a first and second scroll (76/78) with the second scroll including shaft (90). The first scroll is rotated by a motor (20) that is an axial-flux motor (¶0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashizume to replace the motor with an axial flux motor as taught by Doepker. This is a simple substitution of one known element (motor in Hashizume) for another (axial flux motor in Doepker) to obtain predictable results (to rotate the scrolls in the scroll compressor).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9010157 A1 to Hashizume et al. (Hashizume) and US 5102316 A to Caillat et al. (Caillat) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 5548973 A to Komine et al. (Komine).
Regarding claim 23:
Hashizume and Caillat fail to disclose:
The compressor according to claim 2,wherein:the first sleeve is made of at least one of a sintered material, a metallic material and a composite material.
Komine teaches:
A compressor (figure 6) that includes sleeves (93/94) that support a shaft/piston (97) through rotation. The reference further indicates that the sleeves can be made from metal (column 10, lines 45-56 and column 11, lines 5-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashizume and Caillat to further include the sleeve of Caillat incorporated into Hashizume from metal as taught by Komine since metal is more wear resistant and would improve the durability and performance of compressor in Hashizume.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9010157 A1 to Hashizume et al. (Hashizume) and US 5102316 A to Caillat et al. (Caillat) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 6206667 B1 to Turneret al. (Turner).
Regarding claim 24:
Hashizume and Caillat fail to disclose:
The compressor according to claim 2,wherein:the first sleeve has a Rockwell hardness of greater than or equal to 15.
Turner teaches:
A pump including a housing (12) with shafts (27/27), rotors (14/16) and bearings/bushings (48). The reference further teaches the interacting surfaces and running surfaces should be made formed from material greater than a Rockwell hardness greater than 56 (column 5, lines 5-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashizume and Caillat to make the first sleeve (component with interacting surface) from material with a Rockwell hardness greater than 56 as taught by Turner in order to reduce the wear and tear of the first sleeve during operation of the compressor improving performance and durability of the first sleeve and the compressor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 -9, 12, 18, 20-21 and 25 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.
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1:
The applicant has provided arguments as to why the Hashizume reference no longer reads on the amended claim however the office is not persuaded. The applicant argues that the above rejection is improper since it does not disclose “wherein the driving mechanism is supportively connected to the first scroll” (see page10 of the remarks). The applicant further argues that the boss 4 does not have a similar function of location as amended in claim 1. However, its unclear to the office what the boss 4 has to do with the driving mechanism 6 has to do with the boss and further what the boss 4 has to do with the amended language of the claim. As indicated above, the reference does show how the driving mechanism 6/6a is supportively connected to the first scroll 15 via the bolt 16 as shown in figure 1. The boss has not impact on this function beyond it supports the driving mechanism 6/6a which by extension supports the first scroll 15 vias the bolt 16. For this reason, the above rejection still reads on the amendment and the above rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims:
The applicant has argued these rejection should be withdrawn since the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 is improper and since the references of these rejections do not read on the claim amendments. However, since the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 is maintained the above rejections of claims 2, 3 and 22-24 are also maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights