DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 3, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 5 and 8 – 12 are pending in the application with claims 11 and 12 being withdrawn and claims 6 and 7 being cancelled. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed November 19, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 – 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Genevois et al. (US 9,080,567 – herein after Genevois).
In reference to claim 1, Genevois discloses a scroll compressor (see fig. 1), comprising:
an outer shell (3), provided with a gas inlet (18);
an inner shell (27), arranged in the outer shell (3);
a motor (“electric motor”, see col. 6, lines 1-3), arranged in the inner shell and comprising a stator (21) and a rotor (22) arranged in the stator; and
a scroll assembly (9+13), provided with a compression chamber (14) for compressing a refrigerant gas (see abstract) and configured to compress the refrigerant gas under control of the motor, wherein
an air gap is provided between the stator and the rotor and/or between the stator and the inner shell [see col. 7, lines 7-8: “…and on the other hand via the air gap existing between the stator 21 and the rotor 22..”], an upper chamber (29a) is formed in the inner shell (27) between the motor and the scroll assembly (9+13), and the upper chamber is provided with an upper inlet hole (35 and/or 38 – herein after referred as 35, 38); a lower chamber (29b) is formed in the inner shell (27) on a side (bottom side) of the motor away from the scroll assembly (9+13), the lower chamber is provided with a lower ventilation hole (36);
refrigerant gas entering from the gas inlet (18) has a lower temperature than the motor (inherent feature in view of motor being cooled by the refrigerant), and the refrigerant gas entering from the gas inlet is configured to enter the compression chamber partly from the upper inlet hole (35, 38) through the upper chamber (29a), and partly enter the lower chamber from the lower ventilation hole (36) and enter the compression chamber from the air gap through the upper chamber (see col. 7, lines 55-67 and col. 8, lines 1-9), to absorb heat of the motor.
In reference to claim 2, Genevois discloses the scroll compressor, wherein the lower ventilation hole (see fig. 1) comprises a lower inlet hole (36) and a lower outlet hole (39), and the refrigerant gas entering from the gas inlet (18) is configured to enter at least partially into the lower inlet hole (36); the lower outlet hole (39) is connected to the upper inlet hole (38, 35) through a gap between the inner shell (27) and outer shell (3).
In reference to claim 3, Genevois discloses the scroll compressor, wherein (see fig. 1) the motor further comprises an upper wire wrap (winding 21a) and a lower wire wrap (winding 21b), the upper wire wrap (21a) is arranged in the upper chamber (29a) and the lower wire wrap (21b) is arranged in the lower chamber (29b), refrigerant gas in the upper chamber (29a) is configured to cool the upper wire wrap (21a),
the refrigerant gas in the upper chamber (29a) comprises
refrigerant gas entering the upper chamber (29a) from the gas inlet (18) through the lower chamber (29b) and the air gap (see fig. 1),
refrigerant gas entering the upper chamber (29a) from the gas inlet (18) through the upper inlet hole (35, 38), and
refrigerant gas entering the upper chamber (29a) from the gas inlet (18) through the lower chamber (29b), the lower ventilation hole (36) and the upper inlet hole (35, 38), and
the refrigerant gas in the lower chamber (29b) is configured to cool the lower wire wrap (21b).
In reference to claim 4, Genevois discloses the scroll compressor, further comprising an air guiding portion (33; see figs. 1-2), wherein the air guiding portion (33) is arranged on the inner shell (27) or the outer shell and an end of the air guiding portion (bottom end of 33) is in connection with the lower inlet hole (36), and an opening of the other end of the air guiding portion (opening of top end of the air guiding portion 33) faces an export (distribution of refrigerant) of the gas inlet (18).
In reference to claim 10, Genevois discloses the scroll compressor, wherein the upper inlet hole (35) and the lower ventilation hole (36) are configured to be uniformly distributed around the circumferential direction of the inner shell (27) [in view of figs. 1-2: there are two circulation channels 33 circumferentially arranged on the inner shell 27, wherein each channel 33 communicating with corresponding asserted upper inlet hole 35 and corresponding lower ventilation hole 36; thus, two ventilation holes 36 and two upper inlet holes 35 (in view of figs. 1-2) are uniformly distributed around the circumferential direction of the inner shell].
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genevois in view of Daussin et al. (US 2018/0355869 – herein after Daussin).
Genevois teaches the scroll compressor, wherein (see fig. 1) the air guiding portion (33) is arranged on the inner shell (27), an entry (entry corresponding to opening 34, see fig. 1) of the air guiding portion (33) directly faces an opening of the outer shell (top opening of the outer shell 3 that receives or is closed by body 5, see fig. 1), and a spacing (in radial direction, see fig. 1) between an outer contour of the air guiding portion (33) and an inner surface of the outer shell (3).
Genevois remains silent on the scroll compressor, wherein the spacing ranges from 2 mm to 15 mm.
However, Daussin teaches a scroll compressor, wherein a spacing is defined between an outer contour of an air guiding portion (35) and an inner surface of an outer shell (4). Daussin explicitly states that this distance is important for flow [see ¶42: “According to an embodiment of the invention, the scroll compressor further includes an inner shell surrounding the driving motor, the fluid deflecting and dividing device being secured to an outer surface of the inner shell. As the fluid deflecting and dividing device is not secured to the outer shell (which is the case for conventional scroll compressors) but to the inner shell, the distance between the refrigerant suction inlet and the fluid deflecting and dividing device is bigger. Thus securing the fluid deflecting and dividing device to the inner shell allows setting a high turning radius, which is lowering the pressure loss and lets some space to ensure a proper azimuthal distribution of the refrigerant”]. Thus, “spacing” between an outer contour of the air guiding portion and an inner surface of the outer shell is a result effective variable since varying it affects the distribution and properties of the fluid/refrigerant flowing through this space.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the spacing “ranging from 2 mm to 15 mm” in the Genevois’s compressor since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genevois.
Regarding claim 8,
Genevois teaches the scroll compressor having a sum of areas of upper inlet holes (35, 38) and a sum of areas of lower outlet holes (39).
Genevois does not explicitly disclose that the sum of areas of upper inlet holes is set to be less than the sum of areas of lower outlet holes.
However, Genevois states (see col. 7, lines 10-13) “According to another alternative embodiment of the invention, the proximal inlet openings 35 may have passage cross-sections smaller than those of the distal inlet openings 36”, and Genevois also discloses that there are two proximal inlet openings 35 (see col. 6, lines 61-62) and two distal inlet openings 36 (see col. 7, lines 1-2), which would result in the sum of areas of upper inlets holes set to be less than a sum of areas of lower outlet holes for an equal number of upper and lower inlets.
Regarding claim 9,
Genevois teaches the scroll compressor, wherein the number of the upper inlet holes [if inlet holes are considered to be “35+38” then there are total of four (two holes 35 + two holes 38)] is greater than the number of the lower outlet holes [two lower outlet holes 39].
Genevois remains silent on the scroll compressor, wherein “an area of each of the upper inlet holes is smaller than an area of each of the lower outlet holes”.
However, Genevois states (see col. 7, lines 10-13) “According to another alternative embodiment of the invention, the proximal inlet openings 35 may have passage cross-sections smaller than those of the distal inlet openings 36”. Thus, “area” of the upper inlet hole(s) is a result effective variable since varying it affects the fluid flow flowing through it (see col. 7, lines 14-21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have “an area of each of the upper inlet holes is smaller than an area of each of the lower outlet holes” in the Genevois’s compressor since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. As a result, the previous rejection of claims under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 are hereby maintained.
With respect to claim 1: The Applicant contends that Genevois lacks a “dedicated” lower ventilation hole and the specific “bottom-in and top-out” flow logic.
The argument is a functional distinction that does not overcome the structural anticipation. Genevois explicitly discloses a distal chamber (29b) located on the side of the motor away from the compression stage. This chamber is provided with distal inlet openings (36). Structurally, the “distal inlet opening” of Genevois performs the identical function and occupies the identical relative position as the “lower ventilation hole” of the present claim. Regarding the flow path, Genevois states (see col. 7, lines 5-67 and col. 8, lines 1-9) that refrigerant enters the distal chamber and flow toward the compression stage through the air gap existing between the stator (21) and the rotor (22). This creates the exact “bottom-to-top” flow path the Applicant traverses.
With respect to claim 1: The Applicant contends that Genevois lacks a “dedicated” confluence chamber and that paths may mix in the flow channel instead.
Genevois discloses proximal chamber (29a) located between the motor and the compression stage. Genevois teaches that a first part of the refrigerant penetrates the proximal chamber (29a) through the proximal inlet opening (35). Simultaneously, a second part of the refrigerant flows from the distal chamber (29b) through the air gap to reach the compression stage. Because both paths must pass through the space occupied by the proximal chamber before entering the compression chambers (14), the proximal chamber structurally performs the “confluence” function regardless whether the Applicant characterizes it as “dedicated”. It is clearly evident from the disclosure and drawings of Genevois that the air gap is present between the stator and the rotor, and the refrigerant flows in claimed manner as required by claim 1. The applicant’s argument that “The air gap in Claim 1 of the present application is provided between the stator and the rotor and/or between the stator and the inner shell, and is the only channel for lower chamber → upper chamber” is not found to be persuasive as well because such interpretation/feature is not required/recited by the claim. Furthermore, this refrigerant cools the upper and lower windings of the stator, as discussed in rejection of claim 3.
The Applicant’s remarks focus on why their design is “better” or “logica,” but they fail to point to a specific structural element in claim 1 that is physically absent in Genevois.
With respect to claim 2: The Applicant contends that Genevois uses an independent “refrigerant circulation duct” (37) rather than a “gap between the inner shell and the outer shell”.
Genevois defines an annular outer volume (28) situated between the intermediate casing (27) and the sealed enclosure (3). The circulation duct (37) is mounted on the outer wall of the intermediate casing (27) and is situated within this annular outer volume. A connection established via a duct that resides inside a gap is still a connection that occurs “through the gap”. The use of a duct to guide the flow within that gap is a specific implementation of the claimed “connection”.
With respect to claim 5: The Applicant argues that this specific range is “optimal” and solves the problem of balancing assembly feasibility with cooling effect.
Genevois and Daussin collectively suggest the importance of this spacing. Dausin explicitly states that the distance between the deflector and the shell is critical for lowering pressure loss and ensuring proper distribution. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill. The Applicant mentions “a large number of experiments” but has provided no objective evidence, such as comparative data, to show that this specific range produces unexpected results or is truly critical.
With respect to claims 8 and 9: The Applicant argues that Genevois does not disclose the specific proportionality of total areas or the combination of hole counts and single-hole areas.
Genevois teaches that proximal inlet openings may have passage cross-sections smaller than those of the distal openings. Given this teaching, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the total sum of areas or the specific number of holes to achieve the desired flow balance. Changing the number of holes while maintaining the taught area relationship is a predictable variation that yields predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746