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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on October 11, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 10 2022 126 272.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant has filed an interim copy, however, a certified copy is required.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 9/13/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 10 2023 124 743.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant has filed an interim copy, however, a certified copy is required.
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.
Claims 12, 15-17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU (U.S. Patent 11,852,144 B2, with effective filing date of 9/3/2021).
Regarding claim 12, HU discloses: a compressor coupling component (13-2, 13-3) for coupling a drive shaft (13-2) and a movable spiral (12-1) in a scroll compressor (see Figure 1, Column 1, lines 15-17), the compressor coupling component comprising:
a planar main body (13-3-2) with a front side and a rear side opposite the front side (see Marked up Figure 4 of HU);
a cylindrical coupling neck (see Marked up Figure 4 of HU), which is integrally formed on or fastened to the planar main body or inserted into the planar main body (see Marked up Figure 4 of HU), wherein a cylinder axis of the cylindrical coupling neck runs perpendicularly to a plane of the planar main body (see Figures 4 and 5), and the cylindrical coupling neck protrudes from the planar main body in an axial direction (see Figure 4), in relation to the cylinder axis of the cylindrical coupling neck, on the front side of the planar main body (see Marked up Figure 4 of HU); and
a counterweight (13-3) (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU), which is at least partially formed in the shape of a hollow cylindrical segment (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU that shows it is in a shape of a partially formed, hollow cylindrical segment due to it has a cylindrical segment with the center being “hollow”), has an arcuate outer contour (see Figures 4 and 5), is integrally formed on an outer region of the planar main body which only partially encloses the cylindrical coupling neck (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU) and a neck-surrounding region (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU) which runs coaxially with the cylinder axis (see Marked up Figure 4 of HU that shows that it runs coaxially with the cylinder axis) and completely encloses the cylindrical coupling neck (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU), and protrudes beyond the planar main body in the axial direction on the rear side of the planar main body (see Marked up Figure 4 of HU), wherein the planar main body has opposing outer edge regions (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU) which, starting from an arcuate base edge region of the planar main body partially enclosing the neck-surrounding region (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU), extend as far as ends of the counterweight which oppose each other in an arc direction of the counterweight (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU), and in an outer contour of the planar main body run linearly in a manner of increasingly spaced-apart V-legs (see Figure 4 that shows outer contour of the planar main body run linearly in a manner of increasingly spaced-apart V-legs), wherein a supporting element or multiple supporting elements (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU) is/are additionally formed in regions of the planar main body which are adjacent to the outer edge regions running in the manner of the V- legs (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU) in order to reinforce the compressor coupling component (the claimed limitation directed to “in order to reinforce the compressor coupling component” is a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, HU is capable of performing the claimed function, since the supporting element is similar to a rib, and therefore, would reinforce the compressor coupling component), wherein there are multiple supporting elements and the supporting elements are reinforcing ribs of a rib structure which protrudes from the planar main body in the axial direction on the rear side of the planar main body (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU), and wherein the reinforcing ribs as supporting elements protrude in the axial direction on the rear side of the planar main body (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5).
HU fails to disclose fails to specifically show that the reinforcing ribs extend exactly as far as the counterweight protrudes beyond the planar main body on the rear side. HU discloses that the reinforcing ribs end up the side of the counterweight and not all the way to the top surface of the counterweight.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the reinforcing ribs extend exactly as far as the counterweight protrudes beyond the planar main body on the rear side, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, extending the reinforcing ribs to the end of the counterweight would have an obvious advantage to adding support and structure to the counterweight.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
527
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, HU discloses: the rib structure with the reinforcing ribs as supporting elements extends as far as the counterweight (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU).
Regarding claim 16, HU discloses: the rib structure contains two reinforcing ribs as supporting elements (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU that shows two reinforcing ribs as the supporting elements), which are each adjacent to one of the opposing outer edge regions (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU).
Regarding claim 17, HU discloses: the two reinforcing ribs as supporting elements each extend as far as one of the ends of the counterweight which oppose each other in the arc direction (see Marked up Figures 4 and 5 of HU).
Regarding claim 21, HU discloses: the cylindrical coupling neck has a receiving bore (13-2-1) oriented eccentrically to the cylinder axis (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 22, HU discloses: the scroll compressor for a gaseous fluid (for a gaseous fluid is considered as intended use. HU discloses a scroll compressor (see Abstract), where compressors compress compressible fluids such as gas, and therefore, the scroll compressor of HU is capable of being used for gaseous fluids) , comprising:
a compressor housing (see Marked up Figure 1 of HU) and two interleaving spirals (12-2, 12-1) inside the compressor housing (see Figure 1, Column 4, line 60 – Column 5, line 15), wherein a first one of the spirals is stationary (12-2) (see Figure 1, Column 4, line 60 – Column 5, line 15), and a second one of the spirals (12-1) is the movable spiral (see Figure 1, Column 4, line 60 – Column 5, line 15) and is movable eccentrically on a circular trajectory (see Figure 1, Column 4, line 60 – Column 5, line 15), and a volume of compression chambers formed between the first one of the spirals and the second one of the spirals can be changed cyclically by a movement of the second one of the spirals (see Figure 1, Column 4, line 60 – Column 5, line 15, claim 1),
an eccentric drive (see Marked up Figure 1 of HU), by means of which the second one of the spirals is movable on the circular trajectory and which comprises the drive shaft which is rotatable and the compressor coupling component according to Claim 12 which is rotatable with the drive shaft (see Figures 1, 4, and 5, Column 4, line 60 – Column 5, line 15, claim 1), wherein the second one of the spirals is connected eccentrically to the drive shaft via the compressor coupling component (see Figures 1, 4, and 5, Column 4, line 60 – Column 5, line 15, claim 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
766
679
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU in view of SHA (Chinese Patent Publication CN 208885525 U, a machine translation is provided with the foreign reference in the PTO-892 Notice of References Filed and is utilized in the rejection below).
Claim 19 recites the compressor coupling component is produced by a metal powder forming process, and Claim 20 recites the compressor coupling component is produced by a steel powder pressing method. Claims 19 and 20 are considered as a product by process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, HU discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, however, fails to disclose the compressor coupling component is made of metal (claim 19, where metal is the structure that is a result of a metal powder forming process) or made of steel (claim 20, where steel is the structure that is a result of a steel powder pressing method).
SHA teaches the components of the scroll compressor such as the eccentric weight part (which is part of the compressor coupling component of HU) is made by powder metallurgy including carbon steel part (see Page 2 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the compressor coupling component made of metal such as steel in the compressor coupling component of HU (i.e. that the compressor coupling component is produced by a metal powder forming process or using a steel powder pressing method), specifically steel, 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. Furthermore, SHA teaches that the compressor coupling component (eccentric weight) is made by powder metallurgy including carbon steel part, and therefore, it requires only routine skill in the art to make the compressor coupling component of metal such as steel, and produces predictable results (i.e. the desired weight and strength for the compressor coupling component).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are that HU fails to disclose the combination of claims 18, 14, and 13 that were amended into claim 12. The Examiner does agree that HU fails to disclose that the reinforcing ribs extend exactly as far as the counterweight protrudes beyond the planar main body on the rear side. HU discloses that the reinforcing ribs end up the side of the counterweight and not all the way to the top surface of the counterweight. The Examiner considers having the reinforcing ribs extend exactly as far as the counterweight protrudes beyond the planar main body on the rear side as an obvious matter of design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, extending the reinforcing ribs to the end of the counterweight would have an obvious advantage to adding support and structure to the counterweight. There is no criticality for this feature in the specification, as well as, one having ordinary skill in the art would have extended the ribs to be exactly as far as the counterweight protrudes beyond the planar main body on the rear side to provide additional support for the counterweight. In addition, the Examiner would like to point out that ONO (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2016-102484 A) shows in Figure 2 the counterweight has V-shaped areas that do extend exactly as far as the counterweight protrudes beyond the planar main body.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746