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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures are numbered out of order and do not begin with the number 1 (the figures are numbered 40, A-D, 59, 61-63, F, 48…); The figures should be numbered consecutively beginning with the number 1. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Rolling Piston Rotary Compressor having a Lubrication Pump.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification should be amended throughout to correct the references to the new figure numbers.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the left and right “notched portion” mentioned in claim 18.
The Examiner believes the following structures are being referenced from Fig. B:
PNG
media_image1.png
116
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current application includes two PCT applications in its continuity chain; there are multiple abstracts included in this application which appear to by the two abstracts from the different PCT parent applications; also, the abstract should make reference to some of the details from the elected invention and independent 9. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “vertical” should be “horizontal”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: a clear reference for left and right should be provided or else language such as “the baffle includes notched portions on opposite sides of a longitudinal axis of the camshaft” should be provided. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 after “symmetrical” “relative to the longitudinal axis of the camshaft” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term/limitation “generally” used throughout the specification and the claims will be considered in a manner similar to “substantially” as discussed in MPEP 2173/05(b).
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) 9-14 and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannaway (USPN 6,290,472) in view of Kurahayashi et al (USPN 4,456,437).
With regards to claim 9, Gannaway discloses an apparatus (see the horizontally disposed embodiment of Fig. 1) comprising a first rolling piston rotary compressor roller (132 at the left end of Fig. 1); a substantially hollow camshaft (52) arranged to cooperate (via eccentric 122) with the first rolling piston rotary compressor roller; an oil pump (112) arranged at the end of the hollow shaft; and an oil pick-up tube (114).
Gannaway does not disclose an Archimedes screw or a flexible coupling mechanically coupled to the camshaft therein, having a first end portion extending from the camshaft in a first direction, having a second end portion extending in a second direction into engagement with the Archimedes screw, and having an intermediate portion extending between the first end portion and the second end portion and bending from the first direction to the second direction.
Kurahayashi et al disclose a similar motor driven roller pump with a hollow (near 6e) camshaft (6) having a flexible coupling (15) which in combination with the oil pipe (13b) acts as an Archimedes screw in the portion of the flexible coupling that is inside the oil pipe (13b) and submerged in the oil reservoir (14); the flexible coupling is mechanically coupled to the camshaft therein (in the hollow space 6e, see col. 2 lines 40-45), having a first end portion extending from the camshaft in a first direction (the left horizontal end in Fig. 1), having a second end portion (the portion of the flexible coupling 15 submerged in the oil reservoir) extending in a second direction (generally downwards, see col. 2 lines 35 & 36) into engagement (the flexible coupling is integral with and thus engaged to the portion forming the Archimedes screw) with the Archimedes screw, and having an intermediate portion (the unsubmerged portion of the flexible coupling between the first portion and the second portion) extending between the first end portion and the second end portion and bending from the first direction to the second direction.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute an Archimedes type oil pump such as disclosed by Kurahayashi et al for the centrifugal type impeller (240) pump of Gannaway as a well known and simpler rotary driven oil pump which has fewer parts.
With regards to claims 10 and 11, Gannaway in view of Kurahayashi et al teach of the apparatus of claim 9, and additionally disclose wherein the flexible coupling includes a flexible rod (claim 10) or a flexible coil (claim 11). The spring member 15 of Kurahayashi et al is clearly a coil member but is also a rod bent into a coiled form in its broadest sense.
With regards to claim 12, Gannaway in view of Kurahayashi et al teach of the apparatus of claim 11, and Kurahayashi et al additionally disclose an oil flow tube (13, 13b) covering the intermediate portion of the coil.
With regards to claim 13, Gannaway in view of Kurahayashi et al teach of the apparatus of claim 12, and Kurahayashi et al clearly teaches wherein the first direction is generally horizontal (note the horizontal drive shaft) and the second direction is generally downward (see col. 2 lines 35 & 36).
With regards to claim 14, Gannaway in view of Kurahayashi et al teach of the apparatus of claim 13, and Kurahayashi et al teaches of an axial flow impeller (the grooves 6f, 6g & 6h) fastened (the grooves are integral to the shaft and are thus broadly fastened to the cam shaft) to the camshaft therein (the grooves are formed to extend into the outer surface of the camshaft and are thus in the camshaft).
With regards to claims 34, 35 and 36, Gannaway in view of Kurahayashi et al teach of the apparatus of claims 9, 10 and 14 and Gannaway further teaches of a second rolling piston rotary compressor roller (132 at the right end of Fig. 1), wherein the substantially hollow camshaft is arranged to cooperate (via eccentric 122 on the right end) with the second rolling piston rotary compressor roller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20, 37 and 38 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither disclose nor make obvious an apparatus including a hollow camshaft having a rolling piston rotary compressor roller arranged thereon and a flexible coupling coupled to the camshaft and to an Archimedes screw, as claimed in claim 13; further comprising a semi-hermetic compressor housing; a baffle positioned generally above the oil flow tube, the baffle including a bottom surface and a top surface; a refrigerant discharge tube positioned generally above the top surface of the baffle, opening inside the compressor housing, extending through the compressor housing, and opening outside the compressor housing as well, wherein the oil flow tube and the baffle are housed in the compressor housing, and the bottom surface of the baffle is in fluid communication with the top surface of the baffle within the compressor housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishida et al discloses a variety of Archimedes type screw pumps; Hasegawa et al discloses a two roller apparatus with a lubrication system in the camshaft; Cook discloses a flexible shaft driving an Archimedes pump; and, Kirby et l disclose an Archimedes screw pump.
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
March 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights