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 .
Application Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on December 4, 2025. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 4, and 9, cancelled Claim 7, and added Claims 12 – 15. Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous title objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
Previous 112f interpretations stand.
Previous 112b rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
With regards to previous prior art rejections, applicant amended Claim 1 by incorporating features of previous Claim 7. Applicant argues that element 12 in Murakami is not a bearing plate, and even if it is a bearing plate, it is not located between a drive housing and a compressor housing, nor is it made of a material having similar thermal expansion characteristics as the bearing. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s conclusion. First, element 12 in Murakami is a plate-shaped structure that acts to secure bearing 42 and shaft 43 in place relative to other components of the compressor. This meets the requirements of being a bearing plate under broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification. Second, Murakami is/was a tertiary teaching reference that teaches the feature of a bearing plate being fixedly connected to the fixed scroll (counter spiral). Murakami was never relied on to teach being located between the drive housing and the compressor housing, nor the thermal expansion characteristics features recited. These features are already present in one or more of Matsumoto, Watanabe, and Park. The modification made via Murakami was fixedly attaching the bearing plate of Watanabe to the fixed scroll of Watanabe in a manner similar to that shown in Murakami, i.e. with pins or a fastener of some sort. There was no proposed modification replacing the bearing plate of Watanabe with the bearing plate of Murakami.
Claim Interpretations Under 35 USC § 112
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
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.
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.
Similarly, an application may include 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.
The following Claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1: anti-rotation mechanism – read as “a mechanism (generic placeholder) for anti-rotation (function)…
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.
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.
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 § 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 – 4 and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (hereafter “Matsumoto” – JP H06-030486U), in view of Murakami (US 2012/0237381).
With regards to Claims 1 and 12 – 14:
Matsumoto discloses a positive-displacement machine (Figure 4) according to the spiral principle, wherein the positive displacement machine comprises a scroll compressor (scroll compressor, Figure 4, Paragraph 1) comprising a housing (housing 10) comprising a compressor housing (housing 10a) and a drive housing (housing 10c), wherein an orbiting displacement spiral (movable scroll 20) and a counter spiral (fixed scroll 16) are located in the compressor housing, which engage into one another in such a way that variable compression chambers (Paragraph 12) are formed between the [orbiting] displacement spiral and the counter spiral in order to receive and compress a working medium flowing through a working medium circuit (Paragraph 12), wherein, in the drive housing, a drive shaft (shaft 11) is located, which is drivingly connected to the displacement spiral (Figure 4, Paragraph 9), wherein, a bearing plate (plate 34) is located between the drive housing and the compressor housing, which bearing plate carries a bearing (bearing 13) for the drive shaft, and wherein an anti-rotation mechanism (Figure 3, Paragraph 10) is provided between the bearing plate and the orbiting displacement spiral, wherein the bearing plate is located entirely within the housing (as shown in Figure 4), wherein the bearing plate and the bearing are made of materials whose coefficient of thermal expansion differs by at most 20%, or by at most 10%, or by at most 5% (Paragraph 14: “Generally, ball bearings 13 are made of an iron alloy material, and therefore, in the configuration of the above embodiment, there is a risk that the support function of the front end plate 10b for the ball bearings 13 will be reduced during operation due to the difference in thermal expansion coefficient between the ball bearings 13 and the front end plate 10b, which is made of an aluminum alloy material. However, if the fixed-side wear-resistant plate 34 made of an iron alloy material is extended in the direction of the axis X to surround the ball bearing 13 and the ball bearing 13 is supported by the fixed-side wear-resistant plate 34, there will be no difference in the thermal expansion coefficient between the bearing and the bearing support part, and the ball bearing 13 can be stably supported during operation”).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the bearing plate is fixedly connected to the counter spiral. Murakami (Figure 1) teaches a scroll compressor (10) including a bearing plate (12) connected to a fixed counter scroll (23) in a positive-locking manner (via pins 22). As both components are designed to be non-rotatable in operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto by fixing the bearing plate to the fixed scroll in order to yield the predictable result of ensuring non-rotation of the two components relative to each other.
With regards to Claim 2:
The Matsumoto modification of Claim 1 teaches the bearing plate is connected to the housing in a positive-locking manner (Paragraph 14 of Matsumoto: “press-fit” the wear plate 34 into the housing 10b).
With regards to Claim 3:
The Matsumoto modification of Claim 1 teaches the bearing plate is fixed in a housing ring (housing 10b of Matsumoto) which is located between the drive housing (housing 10c of Matsumoto) and the compressor housing (housing 10a of Matsumoto).
With regards to Claims 4 and 15:
The Matsumoto modification of Claim 1 teaches the housing ring (housing 10b) comprises a material different than the material of the bearing plate (Paragraph 14 of Matsumoto: “the front end plate 10b, which is made of an aluminum alloy material”), and the same material as the drive housing and/or the compressor housing (Paragraph 11: “Of the above-mentioned components, the housing 10, the fixed scroll 16 and the movable scroll 20 are made of an aluminum alloy material in order to reduce the weight of the compressor”).
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (hereafter “Watanabe” – US 2013/0142682) in view of Park et al. (hereafter “Park” – US 2019/0264689), further in view of Murakami (US 2012/0237381).
With regards to Claims 1 and 12 – 14:
Watanabe discloses a positive-displacement machine (Figure 1) according to the spiral principle comprising a scroll compressor (scroll compressor 1), comprising a housing comprising a compressor housing (compressor housing 3) and a drive housing (motor housing 4), wherein an orbiting displacement spiral (orbiting scroll 22) and a counter spiral (fixed scroll 21) are located in the compressor housing, which engage into one another in such a way that variable compression chambers (compression chambers 23) are formed between the [orbiting] displacement spiral and the counter spiral in order to receive and compress a working medium flowing through a working medium circuit (Paragraph 50, Paragraph 30), wherein, in the drive housing, a drive shaft (shaft 14) is located, which is drivingly connected to the displacement spiral (Paragraph 52), wherein, a bearing plate (bearing member 16) is located between the drive housing and the compressor housing, which bearing plate carries a bearing (main bearing 17) for the drive shaft, and wherein an anti-rotation mechanism (Oldham ring 32) is provided between the bearing plate and the orbiting displacement spiral, wherein the bearing plate is located entirely within the housing (as shown in Figure 1),
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose the bearing plate and the bearing are made of materials whose coefficient of thermal expansion differs by at most 20%, or by at most 10%, or by at most 5%. Park (Figures 1, 2) teaches a scroll compressor including a bearing plate (main frame 121) and a bearing (161). Park teaches that the bearing itself is made from steel (Paragraph 30) and that the bearing support member (i.e. main frame) may also be made of steel in order to reduce the relative thermal expansion between them (Paragraphs 75, 76), which would improve service life and reliability. While Park does teach that making the bearing support member of steel increases compressor weight and may be disadvantageous if weight is a priority, this does not rise to a level of criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discoursing investigation into use of steel as the bearing support member material. Given the teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Watanabe by making the bearing and bearing support member of Watanabe out of the same material (e.g. steel) in order to reduce/prevent relative thermal expansion between the two and yield the predictable benefits described above.
The Watanabe modification above does not explicitly teach the bearing plate is firmly connected to the counter spiral, in particular in a positive-locking manner. Murakami (Figure 1) teaches a scroll compressor (10) including a bearing plate (12) connected to a fixed counter scroll (23) in a positive-locking manner (via pins 22). As both components are designed to be non-rotatable in operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Watanabe by fixing the bearing plate to the fixed scroll in order to yield the predictable result of ensuring non-rotation of the two components relative to each other.
With regards to Claim 2:
The Watanabe modification of Claim 1 teaches the bearing plate is connected to the housing in a positive-locking manner (Paragraph 49 of Watanabe: “Note that the bearing member 16 is fixedly supported on the opened end side of the motor housing 4 using a bolt 18”).
With regards to Claim 5:
The Watanabe modification of Claim 1 teaches the bearing plate is fixed in the drive housing (see Figure 1 of Watanabe, bearing member 16 is entirely contained within the motor housing 4, and is fixedly secured thereto via bolt 18).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (hereafter “Watanabe” – US 2013/0142682) in view of Park et al. (hereafter “Park” – US 2019/0264689), further in view of Murakami (US 2012/0237381), further in view of Sato (DE 112018002824).
With regards to Claim 6:
The Watanabe modification of Claim 1 does not explicitly teach the bearing plate is fixed in the compressor housing. Sato (Figure 1) teaches a scroll compressor (100) including a bearing plate (24) supporting a bearing (18). The bearing plate is fixed in a compressor housing (12) via fasteners (15) rather than a drive housing (11). Thus, Sato teaches a “longer” compressor housing relative to the drive housing in order to encapsulate the bearing plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify Watanabe by making the compressor housing longer to accommodate the bearing plate and fixing the bearing plate in the compressor housing in order to yield the predictable result of e.g. more easily accessing the motor for maintenance without having to remove the bearing plate. This modification would not yield any unexpected results.
Claims 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (hereafter “Watanabe” – US 2013/0142682) in view of Park et al. (hereafter “Park” – US 2019/0264689), further in view of Murakami (US 2012/0237381), further in view of Inaba et al. (hereafter “Inaba” – US 2022/0178370).
With regards to Claims 8 – 11:
The Watanabe modification of Claim 1 does not explicitly teach the orbiting displacement spiral comprises a displacement spiral floor in which a sealing element is attached, wherein a sliding plate is located between the bearing plate and the orbiting displacement spiral, wherein the sliding plate is located completely within the housing, and wherein the sealing element seals against the sliding plate. Inaba (Figure 1) teaches a scroll compressor (1) including a bearing plate (7B), an orbiting scroll (22), and a fixed scroll (21), wherein the orbiting displacement spiral comprises a displacement spiral floor (back surface of mirror plate 31) in which a sealing element (seal material 41, see Paragraph 37) is attached, wherein a sliding plate (thrust plate 38) is located between the bearing plate and the orbiting displacement spiral, in particular the displacement spiral floor (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 37), wherein the sliding plate is located completely within the housing (as shown in Figure 1, thrust plate 38 does not extend radially beyond housing), and wherein the sealing element seals against the sliding plate (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 37). The sliding plate acts to partition a back pressure chamber (39) and a suction portion (37) of the orbiting scroll, with the seal (41) acting to seal the two volumes from one another. MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, the addition of a sliding plate on an orbiting scroll floor and an associated seal to separate a back pressure volume and a suction volume is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement these into Watanabe in order to yield the predictable benefits of maintaining a sealed back pressure chamber to aid in sealing of the compression chambers.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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 on (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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Thursday, January 15, 2026