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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 7th, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction requirement between Inventions I and II in the reply filed on April 7th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there is no serious burden to examine all of the claims at least because a complete and thorough search for the elected invention/claims would include searching classes and subclasses that encompass the non-elected invention/claims”. This is not found persuasive because simply having a similar classification between distinct inventions alone does disqualify the existence of a serious search burden. As noted in MPEP 808.02, “in order to demonstrate a serious search burden, the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following: (A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification. (B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search. (C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.” Respectfully, the restriction requirement mailed on April 7th, 2026 specifically stated “Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: There is an examination and search burden for the patentably distinct inventions due to their mutually exclusive characteristics (described in the restriction). The inventions require different fields of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries related to the distinct combinations of claimed features detailed in the restriction requirement); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.” In this case, the restriction requirement detailed the mutually exclusive claimed features distinct to each invention that ultimately would require different fields of search (including differing subclass search) and different search queries (related to the distinct combinations of claimed features). Therefore, respectfully, the reasons provided in the restriction requirement detail precisely why restriction is necessary and why search burden exists, in accordance with MPEP 803, 806, & 808, and as such, Applicant’s argument to the contrary is not persuasive.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 will be examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “perpendicular” arrangement (Claim 3), the “at least one flow reduction zone” (Claim 7), and the “additional cooling circuit” (Claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. As far as the examiner understands, none of these features are labeled or readily apparent in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 16 should read “extends axially parallel”
Claim 2, line 1 should read “at least one of the inlet port and the outlet port”
Claim 3, line 1 should read “at least one of the inlet port and the outlet port”
Claim 3, line 2 should read “at least one of the single axial circulation fluid supply channel and the outlet channel in a direction perpendicular to the single axial circulation fluid supply channel”
Claim 5, line 1 should read “wherein the first fluid circulation circuit”
Claim 6, line 3 should read “
Claim 8, line 2 should read “defined by the motor”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 1, lines 11-12 recite the limitation “a single axial circulating fluid discharge channel, formed by the alignment of cylindrical segments though the first fluid circulation circuit and the second fluid circulation circuit”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the particular required structural arrangement of the invention cannot be discerned. In this instance, Claim 1 first recites “a single axial circulation fluid supply channel, formed by an alignment of cylindrical segments through the first fluid circulation circuit and the second fluid circulation circuit” at lines 7-8. The limitation at lines 11-12 then refers back to “the alignment of cylindrical segments though the first fluid circulation circuit and the second fluid circulation circuit”. Thus, as written, lines 11-12 appear to require the single axial circulating fluid discharge channel to be formed of the same cylindrical segments as those forming the single axial circulation fluid supply channel. However, Figures 3A-3B clearly show that distinct cylindrical segments (18, 28) make up the two distinct supply/discharge channels. As such, an apparent conflict exists between the claim scope and the described/depicted invention, rendering it unclear how the invention must be structurally arranged. As far as the examiner understands the invention, the single axial circulation fluid supply channel and the single axial circulation fluid discharge channel are formed by respective cylindrical segments running through the first and second circulation circuits. However, this is the opposite of what is currently claimed, bringing about ambiguity as to the required structural arrangement of the invention. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, and therefore, the recited invention is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as requiring the single axial circulation discharge channel to be formed by cylindrical segments distinct from those that make up the single axial circulation fluid supply channel (as shown in the supplied figures).
Claim 8, line 3 recites the limitation “two parallel cylinder segments”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to (i.e. further define) the “cylindrical segments” recited in Claim 1 or 2) introducing additional segments altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are found to be provisionally allowable, pending Applicant overcoming the above-noted objections and rejections. Applicant should be aware that no claim(s) can be properly allowed until all of the issues detailed above have been fully and properly overcome by Applicant.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s invention as recited in Claim 1 is not disclosed nor rendered obvious by the best available prior art. The best available prior art is as follows:
1. US 3,986,799 to McCullough
2. US 2022/0170462 to Nicholas
3. US 2018/006665 to Perevozchikov
4. US 2020/0408201 to Wilson
5. US 2019/0338779 to Shaffer et al.
While each of the above-noted references generally discloses a scroll device having fixed and orbiting scrolls engaged with one another, the orbiting scroll being driven by a motor, and the assembly being cooled by an internal coolant flow path, none of these references discloses a fixed scroll cooled by a first fluid circulation circuit; an orbiting scroll cooled by a second fluid circulation circuit, a motor cooled by a third fluid circulation circuit; and an internal cooling network comprising: a single axial circulation fluid supply channel, formed by an alignment of cylindrical segments through the first fluid circulation circuit and the second fluid circulation circuit, and incorporating an inlet port for connection to an external fluidic source, the inlet port leading directly into the single axial circulation fluid supply channel; and a single axial circulating fluid discharge channel, formed by the alignment of cylindrical segments though the first fluid circulation circuit and the second fluid circulation circuit, and incorporating an outlet port for connection to an external fluidic discharge, the outlet port leading directly into an outlet channel; wherein each of the single axial circulation fluid supply channel and the single axial circulating fluid discharge channel extend axially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the scroll device and passes by the fixed scroll and the orbiting scroll, and wherein the first fluid circulation circuit, the second fluid circulation circuit, and the third fluid circulation circuit are connected to the internal cooling network, as claimed.
Applicant’s specification makes clear that in contrast to series-flow scroll cooling arrangements in the prior art, the recited invention provides a parallel arrangement where the cooling fluid flow is split into separate, or discrete, parallel paths. In this parallel arrangement the restriction of each component in the system has a lower impact on the overall pressure drop of the system than that of a series arrangement (e.g., similar to a parallel arrangement of resistors in electrical circuits). This is due at least in part to the amount of cooling fluid flow each component receives. In the series arrangement or configuration, 100% of the cooling fluid flow is routed through each component in the system. In the parallel arrangement or configuration, the cooling fluid flow is split into two or more independent paths and a majority of the cooling fluid flow is allowed to route along or via the path of least resistance. This parallel arrangement generally results in about a 70%-30% split between the two paths.
The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious Applicant’s claimed parallel cooling arrangement.
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