Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/725,493

COMPRESSOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 28, 2024
Examiner
OMGBA, ESSAMA
Art Unit
3746
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Danfoss (Tianjin) Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
478 granted / 806 resolved
-10.7% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
826
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.3%
+17.3% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 806 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Drawings Pursuant to applicant’s arguments, the objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn. Claim Objections Pursuant to Applicant’s arguments, the objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments coupled to the amendments to the claims, see the whole document, filed 19 May 2025, with respect to Claims 1-3, 7-10, 17-24 and have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-10 and 17-24 has been withdrawn. Claim Objections Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 18, --chamber-- should be inserted after “compression”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The 112(f) claim interpretation outlined in the previous Office Action is still maintained. 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) 1-3, 10, and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover et al. (EP3358192B1) in view of Lifson (US Patent 6,494,695). With regards to claim 1, Stover et al. discloses a compressor comprising a first scroll 68 and a second scroll 70, matching with each other to form a compression chamber (conventional), the first scroll comprising a first end plate 72 and a first wrap 74 extending from the first end plate toward the second scroll (fig. 1), the second scroll comprising a second end plate 78 and a second scroll 80 extending from the second end plate toward the first scroll (paragraph [0050]), and a motor 20 for driving the first scroll and the second scroll synchronously so as to compress a fluid entering the compression chamber (paragraph [0051]), wherein the compressor further comprises a driving member (rotor 98), configured on a side of the second end plate away from the first end plate (fig. 1), wherein the motor is configured to drive, through the driving member, the first end plate to rotate so that the first end plate drives the second end plate to rotate to compress the fluid entering the compression chamber (paragraph [0055]), and wherein the driving member includes a flange 102 and a hub portion 104 extending in a direction facing away from the first scroll member and the second scroll member (radial portion faces away from the first and the second scroll members). Further, in case Applicant argues against calling radial portion a hub, Stover et al. discloses the hub as part of the scroll members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that providing a hub on the driving member as opposed to making the hub part of the scroll members as disclosed by Stover et al. is an obvious matter of design choice wherein no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the hub be part of the driving member versus having the hub be part of the scroll member. Stover et al. does not explicitly disclose that the first scroll member is configured in a shape of a first profile so that a center of mass of the first scroll member coincides or approximately coincides with a rotation center of the first scroll, and the second wrap is configured in a shape of a second profile so that a center of mass of the second scroll coincides or approximately coincides with a rotation center of the second scroll, each of the first profile and the second profile being formed by a hybrid profile. However, Lifson teaches that it is known to configure scroll profiles in a shape so that a center of mass of the scroll coincides with a rotation center of the scroll, see column 1, lines 41-50. Lifson also teaches scrolls with hybrid profiles, see figures 2A, 3A and 3B for example that depicts scroll with varying thicknesses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the first and the second scroll members of Stover et al. in a shape of a first and a second profile so that center of mass of the first scroll member coincides or approximately coincides with a rotation center of the first scroll, and the center of mass of the second scroll coincides or approximately coincides with a rotation center of the second scroll, in light of the teachings of Lifson, in order to minimize the alternating torsional moment acting on the scroll compressor. Applicant should note that selective removal of material would naturally create scroll with hybrid profiles. Regarding claims 2, 3 and 10, see figures 2A, 3A and #B of Lifson for example. Regarding claim 17, see figure 1 of Stover et al. Regarding claim 18, see figures 2A and 3A of Lifson for example. Applicant should note that the exact profile will depend on the desired results and performance of the compressor. Regarding claim 19, see seals 118 and 120 and associated recesses as described in paragraph [0056] of Stover et al. Applicant should note that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install seals where necessary in the scroll as known in the art. Regarding claim 20, see paragraph [0052] and figure 1. Applicant should note that the claimed arrangement is conventional in the art. With regards to claim 21, Stover et al. discloses a compressor comprising a first scroll 68 and a second scroll 70 matching with each other to form a compression chamber (fig. 1, conventional), the first scroll comprising a first end plate 72 and a first scroll wrap 74 extending from the first end plate toward the second scroll, the second scroll comprising a second end plate 78 and a second scroll wrap 80 extending from the second end plate toward the first scroll (fig. 1), a bracket 62 located on a side of the second scroll away from the first scroll, a motor 20, and a driving member 98 configured on a side of the second end plate away from the first end plate and rotatably supported on the bracket (fig. 1), wherein the motor is configured to drive, through the driving member, the first end plate to rotate so that the first end plate drives the second end plate to rotate to compress the fluid entering the compression chamber (paragraph [0055]). Stover et al. does not explicitly disclose that the first scroll member is configured in a shape of a first profile so that a center of mass of the first scroll member coincides or approximately coincides with a rotation center of the first scroll, and the second wrap is configured in a shape of a second profile so that a center of mass of the second scroll coincides or approximately coincides with a rotation center of the second scroll, each of the first profile and the second profile being formed by a hybrid profile. However, Lifson teaches that it is known to configure scroll profiles in a shape so that a center of mass of the scroll coincides with a rotation center of the scroll, see column 1, lines 41-50. Lifson also teaches scrolls with hybrid profiles, see figures 2A, 3A and 3B for example that depicts scroll with varying thicknesses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the first and the second scroll members of Stover et al. in a shape of a first and a second profile so that center of mass of the first scroll member coincides or approximately coincides with a rotation center of the first scroll, and the center of mass of the second scroll coincides or approximately coincides with a rotation center of the second scroll, in light of the teachings of Lifson, in order to minimize the alternating torsional moment acting on the scroll compressor. Applicant should note that selective removal of material would naturally create scroll with hybrid profiles. Regarding claim 22, see figures 2A, 3A and 3B of Lifson for example. Regarding claim 23, see hub portion 104 comprising a first end (top surface) and an opposite second end and rotatably mounted onto the bracket 62 (bottom portion as can be seen in figure 1 through the central aperture on 104), and rotatably mounted onto the bracket 62 (fig. 1), and a flange 102 radially extending outward from the first end (flange 102 has a radial and an axial component just as flange 61 of Applicant’s invention), wherein the driving member is formed with an inner hole extending through the hub portion and the flange (central aperture of 104) and is connected with the first scroll through the flange (paragraph [0055]), and wherein the second end plate of the second scroll is rotatably supported on the flange (fig. 1 and paragraph [0055]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-9, 11-16 and 24 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 10, and 17-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 01 February 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM. 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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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. /ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 28, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 19, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590582
Rotary Pump with Rotor Bearing Cap
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582882
GOLF CLUB SHAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12492699
COMPRESSOR AND AIR CONDITIONER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12473920
LUBRICATION SYSTEM FOR COMPRESSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12460634
PUMP FOR CONVEYING A FLUID
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+32.9%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 806 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month