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 Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of November 1, 2024 which amended claims 1-9, provided a substitute specification and a new abstract.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because cross-hatching should be provided to the elements and the lines for the reference numerals should be made darker. 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 5 and 9 “orbiting” should be inserted before “displacement spiral”. 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 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the material after “in particular”, i.e., a scroll compressor, is intended to be further limiting or not.
In claim 2 it is unclear if the material after “in particular” is line 2 and after “preferably” in line 3 is intended to further limit the claimed invention or not.
Claim 4 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the material after “in particular”, i.e., the inner housing, is intended to be further limiting or not.
Claim 5 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the material after “in particular” in line 3 is intended to be further limiting or not. Claim 5 is also unclear because it sets forth that the bearing plate interconnects the electric motor but then goes on to give examples of the structures that are interconnected and the elements that are not part of the motor are set forth. Therefore it is unclear if parts of the motor are being interconnected or if the motor is being interconnected to the rest of the structure.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the shaft bearing" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The shaft bearing is first mentioned in claim 4 so it is unclear if the claim should have been dependent upon claim 4.
Claim 7 is vague and indefinite because the disclosure has not detailed or shown what an “O-arrangement” is, how it is arranged or what it includes. For purposes of examination it is assumed that this means the bearing surrounds the shaft.
Claim 8 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the material after “in particular” in line 3 is intended to be further limiting or not. Claim 8 is also unclear because it sets forth as an example that the bearing plate comprises materials other than the housing or is formed therefrom. This is very confusing since it is unclear if it is the bearing plate and the rest of the compression assembly that are supposed to have different materials or if it is the compression mechanism and the housing that are supposed to have different materials. Further the “or formed therefrom” limitation seems to set forth that whichever structures are being referred to are actually integral. It is also unclear if “comprising materials other than…” means that the material/chemical make-up are different or if these elements are separate pieces.
Claim 9 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the material after “in particular” is intended to further limits the claims; and, it is unclear how “or is formed therefrom” is intended to limit the claim since the housing comprising corrosion-resistant materials seems to mean that it is formed or includes that material.
Claims not specifically mentioned are indefinite since they depend from one of the above claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 sets forth that the bearing plate has a one part or a multi-part design. Because any construction of the bearing plate would either be made of one piece or of multiple pieces the claim covers every possible construction and therefore does not further limit the claimed invention. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ueda et al (JP2017186910A, cited by the applicant) .
With regards to claim 1, Ueda et al disclose a displacement machine (see Fig. 1) according to the spiral principle, in particular a scroll compressor (see abstract), with a housing (10) and a compression assembly, which has an electric motor (3,3b), an orbiting displacement spiral (4), a counterspiral (5) and a bearing plate (7, 1), wherein the orbiting displacement spiral (4) and the counterspiral (5) intermesh in such a way as to form variable compression chambers (from 2 to 5d) between the displacement spiral and the counterspiral, so as to receive (via 10e) and compress a working fluid flowing through a working fluid circuit (connected to 10e and 10d, not the circuit is not positively claimed), and wherein the electric motor is drive-connected with the orbiting displacement spiral by means of a motor shaft (6), wherein the compression assembly is decoupled from the housing in terms of oscillation (as noted in the abstract the fastening seats 10f, 1b and the bolts 11 decouple and isolate the outer housing from the vibrations created by the inner compression mechanism), wherein the bearing plate (7,1) forms an inner housing (1) in which the electric motor (3,3b) is arranged.
With regards to claim 3, Ueda et al disclose the displacement machine according to claim 1 wherein the bearing plate (7,1) has a multipart design.
With regards to claim 4, Ueda et al disclose the displacement machine according to claim 1 wherein the bearing plate carries a shaft bearing (7b1) of the motor shaft (6).
With regards to claim 5, Ueda et al disclose the displacement machine according to claim 1 wherein-the bearing plate (7,1) fixedly interconnects the electric motor (the housing portion 1 connects to the stator), the shaft bearing (7b1 is mounted in the bearing plate 7) and the counterspiral (the outer rims of the plate and the counterspiral are abutting).
With regards to claim 6, Ueda et al disclose the displacement machine according to claim 1 wherein the shaft bearing (7b1) is the exclusive support of the motor shaft (see Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 8, as understood, Ueda et al disclose the displacement machine according to claim 1, wherein the bearing plate 7 is a separate piece from the housing (10) and is thus made of separate material as understood.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al in view of Ota (USPAP 2012/0251356).
As set forth above Ueda et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed including a decoupling structure/element (10f, 1b, 11) that solely supports the shaft. Ueda et al do not disclose that the decoupling structure/element is a non-metallic member arranged between the compression assembly and the housing. Ota et al disclose a scroll compressor having a non-metallic decoupling member (31 which is made of rubber, see [0045]) arranged between the compression assembly (11) and the housing (20).
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a rubber decoupler, as taught by Ota et al, instead of the beats and bolt of Ueda et al since each of these decouplers are recognized as equivalence for their use in the vibration dampening art and selection of either of these known equivalents to reduce the noise and vibration of Ueda et al would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al in view of Suga et al (JPH10169588A, cited by applicant).
As set forth above Ueda et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed including a bearing (7b1) that solely supports the shaft. Ueda et al do not disclose that the bearing is a double rowed contact ball bearing. Suga et al disclose a scroll compressor having a double rowed contact ball bearing (66) that supports the shaft driving the orbiting displacement spiral.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a double rowed contact ball bearing, as taught by Suga et al, instead of the cylindrical roller bearing since double rowed contact ball bearings and cylindrical roller bearings are recognized as equivalence for their use in the rotary shaft supporting art and selection of either of these known equivalents to support the shaft of Ueda et al would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al.
As set forth above Ueda et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed but does not mention that the housing is made of a corrosion resistant material such as Aluminum. The Examiner gives official notice that compressor housings made of Aluminum are well-known and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select such a material as Aluminum in view of it being an abundant, relatively cheap housing material. Further, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the housing of Aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takei (USPAP 2009/0202376 discloses a motor driven scroll compressor having a bearing plate 14 supporting a ball roller bearing 34 and including O-rings 17a & 17b that seal the bearing plate to the housing 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights