DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Receipt and entry of Applicant's Amendment filed on 09/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16, 18, 19, and 23 have been amended. Claims 1-15, 22, 24, and 25 have been cancelled. Claims 16-21 and 23 are pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/02/2025.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the 112f interpretation because “The "holding assembly" is described in sufficient detail in paragraphs [0242], [0243], and [0249] among others. As this term has been clearly defined in the Specification, Applicants submit that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the structural limitations related to the holding assembly recited in claims 20 and 21”: Respectfully, the test for 112f interpretation is that the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier, not whether the corresponding structure is described in sufficient detail in the specification. There being sufficient description of the corresponding structure in the specification serves to avoid rejections under 112a for lack of written description and 112b for indefiniteness, not to avoid 112f interpretation. Sufficient structure would have to be recited in the claim to avoid 112f interpretation. Accordingly, the 112f interpretations of the “holding assembly” in claims 20 and 21 are maintained.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments with respect to independent claim 16 as amended have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Claim Objections
The claims below are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 should read “the compression unit receives from [[the]] an intake area [[the]] a gaseous medium at a suction pressure (PS)…” for proper antecedent basis;
Claim 17 should read “the at least two pressure pockets… [[a]] the compression cycle” since these elements have already been introduced in claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(claim 20) a holding assembly which prevents a motion of the stationary scroll body in at least one of a radial direction and/or a rotational direction: pilot ring 314 which encircles the stationary scroll body 192 such that an inner cylindrical surface 316 of the pilot ring 314 abuts an outer cylindrical surface 318 of the stationary scroll body 192 for radial restraint as described at [0243-0244] and/or having slots engaging with projecting edges of the stationary scroll body for rotational constraint as described at [0247-0248];
(claim 21) a holding assembly for limiting an axial movement of the stationary scroll body in a direction opposite to the direction limited by the moveable scroll body: pilot ring 314 having an axial surface 328 abutting against an axially directed abutment surface 326 of a flange portion 324 of the stationary scroll body 192 as described at [0245-0246].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16-21 and 23 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 16 recites “at least two pressure pockets”, but the latter two wherein clauses refer to “the pressure pocket”. It is indefinite which of the at least two pressure pockets is being referred to: one, the other, or both? As best understood in view of the disclosure, there is support for only one of the two pressure pockets, specifically the inner pressure pocket, to have a pressure ≥ 75% of PF, since only the single pressure pocket in the Fig. 1 embodiment, which corresponds to the inner pressure pocket in the Fig. 9 two-pocket embodiment, is described as such at [0321] (paragraph numbers refer to those in the spec as filed), while no such description exists for the outer pressure pocket, which also notably connects to the compression chamber before/upstream of the inner pressure pocket and thus has a lower pressure than the inner pressure pocket [0383-0385], thus there is neither explicit description nor any other evidence suggesting that the outer, lower-pressure pocket would also have a pressure ≥ 75% of PF. Accordingly, for examination purposes, “the pressure pocket” is interpreted as referring to only one of the at least two pressure pockets.
Claims 17-21 and 23 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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) 16-19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US 5,823,757 in view of Jang KR 10-0414080.
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses:
A scroll compressor, wherein the scroll compressor comprises two scroll bodies 61, 55, one of the two scroll bodies is a stationary scroll body 61 with a scroll wrap and the other scroll body of the two scroll bodies is a moveable scroll body 55 with a scroll wrap, the scroll wraps of the two scroll bodies 61, 55 engage each other to form at least one compression chamber 75, 76 (Figs. 5-6) and the stationary scroll body 61 comprises a base plate and has two opposing sides with respect to the base plate and on a first side (lower side) of the two opposing sides the scroll wrap of the stationary scroll body is arranged and on the second side (upper side) of the two opposing sides at least one pressure pocket 66 is formed and the at least one pressure pocket 66 is connected to at least one respective vent passage 65 and the vent passage 65 is formed through the base plate of the stationary scroll body 61 from the second side (upper side) at which it opens into the pressure pocket 66 to the first side (lower side) at which the vent passage 65 has an opening which is arranged to fluidly connect the respective pressure pocket 66 with the at least one compression chamber 75, 76 in a time span during the compression cycle of the at least one compression chamber (“That is, as shown in FIG. 4, the moment when the compression chambers 75 and 76 and the back pressure chamber 66 start to communicate with each other is referred to the communication therebetween before the compressed refrigerant gas is discharged and the closing operation therebetween after the compressed refrigerant gas is discharged” col. 7, ll. 6-12, see Fig. 4B “back pressure hole opening/closing interval of the present invention”);
the stationary scroll body 61 and the moveable scroll body 55 are parts of a compression unit 61, 55 of the scroll compressor and the compression unit receives from the intake area the gaseous medium at a suction pressure (PS) (see Fig. 4B, suction pressure PS at 1, noting that pressure ratio = discharge pressure/suction pressure) and compresses the gaseous medium to a maximal intermediate pressure (PF) (Fig. 4B, pressure at discharge start, when compression ends) that is higher pressure than the suction pressure (PS), and discharges the compressed gaseous medium to a discharge chamber 64 in which the gaseous medium is at a discharge pressure (PD) (Fig. 4B, final discharge pressure at P1, P7, P14);
wherein the pressure of the gaseous medium contained in the pressure pocket 66 gets averaged over the compression cycles but still may vary between a lowest pressure (PL) and a highest pressure (PH) (“the back pressure Pb is not greatly changed in accordance with the pressure of the compression chamber since the diameter of the back pressure hole is very small, and becomes an average pressure of the compression chamber” col. 4, ll. 1-5, col. 7, ll. 23-29; so the back pressure Pb in the pressure pocket is an average pressure that varies only slightly over the course of compression due to the small size of the back pressure/vent passage hole, i.e., Pb = (average pressure) ± (a small variance), highest pressure PH = average pressure + small variance, lowest pressure PL = average pressure – small variance); and
wherein the design of the vent passage 65 and of the pressure pocket 66 are such that at least the highest pressure (PH) is during operation of the scroll compressor the same as or larger than 75% of the maximal intermediate pressure (PF) (“the pressure of the gas applied to the back pressure chamber 66 has an average pressure value between the suction gas pressure and the discharging gas pressure” col. 7, ll. 49-51; see Fig. 4B, operating condition P14, suction pressure = 1, discharge pressure = 5.4, pressure Pb in back pressure chamber/pressure pocket 66 = average of the two = 3.2 ± (a small variance), PH = 3.2 + small variance, and is larger than PF = pressure at discharge start = 3, and certainly larger than 75% of PF = 2.25) (here it is also noted that the Fig. 4B pressure chart in Kim closely mirrors that of Figs. 7-8 in the instant application).
Kim is silent regarding:
on the second side of the two opposing sides at least two pressure pockets are formed and each of the at least two pressure pockets is connected to at least one respective vent passage.
Jang teaches:
on the second side (upper side) of the two opposing sides at least two pressure pockets B, B’ are formed and each of the at least two pressure pockets B, B’ is connected to at least one respective vent passage 22-25 and the vent passages 22-25 are formed through the base plate of the stationary scroll body 20 from the second side (upper side) at which they open into their respective pressure pocket B, B’ to the first side (lower side) at which each vent passage 22-25 has an opening which is arranged to fluidly connect the respective pressure pocket B, B’ with the at least one compression chamber P1-4 in a time span during the compression cycle of the at least one compression chamber (Figs. 3a, 3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Kim with that of Jang for the advantages of preventing the fixed scroll from tilting, thereby preventing leakage of refrigerant gas and increasing the efficiency of the compressor, and preventing wear of each wrap or sealing material, thereby improving the reliability of the product (Jang [26]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kim and Jang teaches:
wherein at least two pressure pockets B, B’ are fluidly connected to the at least one compression chamber P1-4 during different time spans during a compression cycle (Jang Figs. 3a, b).
Regarding claims 18-19, the combination of Kim and Jang teaches:
a drive unit 5, 6, 7 for driving the moveable scroll body 3/55 relative to the stationary scroll 2/61 body and/or relative to a housing 1 of the scroll compressor (Kim Fig. 1).
wherein the scroll compressor comprises a support member 4 which supports the moveable scroll body 3/55 in axial direction with respect to a shaft axis of a shaft 5 of the drive unit 5, 6, 7 (Kim Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kim and Jang teaches:
wherein an axial movement of the stationary scroll body 2/61 with respect to the central axis of the stationary scroll body is in one direction (downward) limited by the moveable scroll body 3/55 (Kim Figs. 1, 5) and in the opposite direction (upward) by a holding assembly 11, 12 for the stationary scroll body 2/61 (Kim Figs. 2, 5).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kim and Jang teaches:
wherein at least a portion of the discharge chamber (central chamber in communication with outlet 15/71) is arranged at the first side (lower side) of the stationary scroll body 2/61 and is surrounded in radial direction with respect to the central axis of the stationary scroll body by the scroll wrap of the stationary scroll body 2/61 and the scroll wrap of the moveable scroll body 3/55 (Kim Figs. 1, 2, 5).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US 5,823,757 in view of Jang KR 10-0414080 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Roof et al. US 2013/0251575.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kim and Jang is silent regarding:
a holding assembly which prevents a motion of the stationary scroll body in at least one of a radial direction and/or a rotational direction with respect to the central axis of the stationary scroll body.
Roof teaches:
a holding assembly 160 which prevents a motion of the stationary scroll body 110 in at least one of a radial direction and/or a rotational direction with respect to the central axis of the stationary scroll body [0070] [0076-0077] [0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Kim and Jang with that of Roof for the advantage of ensuring that the scroll bodies are not damaged during operation (Roof [0070]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record (previously cited) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murayama et al. US 4,557,675 also discloses fluid communication to the pressure pocket during both the second and third conditions, see Figs. 8-10.
Kawabe et al. JP H06-93981 and Seibel et al. US 6,419,457 also each disclose at least two pressure pockets.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 XIAOTING HU whose telephone number is (571)272-9222. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm EST.
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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/XIAOTING HU/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 12/22/2025
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 1/7/2026