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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “that crosses” should be “that extends toward and beyond”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2 and 3 “the support wall being abutting the first static scroll” should be “the support wall being in abutting contact with the first static scroll”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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.
This application includes 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “anti-turn assembly configured to…” in claim 1.
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.
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 16, 18 and 20 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 16 is vague and indefinite because in line 5 the eccentric block is set forth as being fixed to the secondary shaft “and axially and radially biased relative to the shaft”. It is unclear in this phrase what is intended by the limitation “biased”. When something is biased there is commonly some type of force that is acting upon it, for example a spring force or a pressure force. The disclosure does not clarify the limitation since it states almost the same thing at one location (see page 12 lines 23-25) and does not provide any detail on the meaning of “biased”. Read in view of the drawings perhaps biased is intended to be referring to a spacing of certain elements or features, but the rest of the claim already sets forth spacing and positional descriptions. The clarity and unclear meaning of the term “biased” is further compounded because the claim sets forth that the eccentric block is “axially and radially biased relative to the secondary shaft” which does not agree with the single recitation in the disclosure which sets forth that the eccentric block 370 is “axially biased, radially outward relative to the secondary shaft” (once again, see page 12 lines 23-25). Therefore, claim 16 is vague and indefinite because the intended meaning of the limitation setting forth that the eccentric block is fixed to the secondary shaft “and axially and radially biased relative to the shaft” is not understood.
Claim 18 is vague and indefinite because in line 2 it is unclear which element or feature “on both sides” is intended to be associated with.
Claim 20 is vague and indefinite because in line 2 there is no antecedent basis for “the output portion inside”.
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) 1-5, 7, 8, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Shibamoto et al (USPN 7,172,395).
With regards to claim 1, Shibamoto et al disclose a vortex compressor (see for example Fig. 13) comprising: a housing (labeled in the annotated portion of Fig. 13 below); an interior chamber (12) housed in the housing; a compression assembly (30) including a static scroll (49, labeled as the First Static Scroll in the annotated figure) fixed to the housing (via elements 40 & 33) and a dynamic scroll (52, labeled in the annotated figure) mated and moveably disposed with the static scroll, wherein a compression cavity (71) is disposed between the static scroll and the dynamic scroll; a drive assembly including a main shaft (20, labeled in the annotated figure) and a drive plate (51, labeled in the annotated figure) connected (via bolt 62 and post 61) to the dynamic scroll, the main shaft being configured (via second shaft 21) to drive a revolution of the dynamic scroll through the drive plate; and an anti-turn assembly (44, 61, 62; labeled in the annotated figure and shown in Fig. 5) configured to prevent self-rotation of the drive plate.
With regards to claim 2 Shibamoto et al disclose a vortex compressor as set forth in claim 1, wherein drive assembly further includes a secondary shaft (21, labeled in the annotated figure) that is off-centered (clearly shown in Fig. 13) to the main shaft and rotatably received (via bearing 34) in the drive plate (51) such that the main shaft and the secondary shaft are axially spaced apart from the static scroll (clearly shown in Fig. 13).
With regards to claim 3 Shibamoto et al disclose a vortex compressor as set forth in claim 2, wherein a secondary hole (labeled in the annotated figure below) is provided in the drive plate, the secondary shaft being received in the secondary hole, and both of the main shaft and the secondary hole being isolated from the compression cavity (the secondary shaft and hole are on the opposite side of the dynamic scroll from the compression chamber).
With regards to claim 4 Shibamoto et al disclose a vortex compressor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the static scroll includes a first (labeled as the First Static Scroll in the annotated figure) and a second (labeled as the Second Static Scroll in the annotated figure) axially separated static scrolls fixed to the housing, the dynamic scroll being movably disposed between (clearly shown in Fig. 13) and mated with the first and second static scrolls, respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
594
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 5 Shibamoto et al disclose a vortex compressor as set forth in claim 4, wherein the anti-turn assembly includes a plurality of posts (61,62) and a plurality of anti-turn holes (44, see Fig. 5), wherein each post passes through one anti-turn hole (see Fig. 5 with three pairs of holes and posts) and the diameter of the anti-turn hole is greater than the diameter of the post (clearly shown in Fig. 5), and wherein the plurality of posts protrude from one of the second static scroll and the drive plate (the posts protrude from the drive plate, note the protruding post label in the annotated figure), and the anti-turn holes are disposed in one of the other of the second static scroll (the holes are in the second static scroll) and the drive plate.
With regards to claim 7 Shibamoto et al disclose a vortex compressor as set forth in claim 5, wherein the plurality of posts protrude from the drive plate (51, as labeled in the annotated figure) and are fixed to the housing (note the static scroll is fixed to the housing indirectly thru the lower housing plate 33), and the plurality of anti- turn holes (44) are disposed in the second static scroll (41, see the dashed lines in Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 8 Shibamoto et al disclose a vortex compressor as set forth in claim 4, wherein the first static scroll is provided with a first static scroll body (47, labeled in the annotated figure), the second static scroll is provided with a second static scroll body (42), and the dynamic scroll is provided on both sides with a first dynamic scroll body (54) that mates with the first static scroll body and a second dynamic scroll body (53) that mates with the second static scroll body.
With regards to claim 14 Shibamoto et al disclose a vortex compressor as set forth in claim 2, wherein the drive assembly further comprises: a primary bearing (34) disposed in the housing and supporting the main shaft; and a secondary bearing (labeled in the annotated drawing) disposed on the drive plate and supporting the secondary shaft.
With regards to claim 19 Shibamoto et al disclose a vortex compressor as set forth in claim 4, wherein the interior chamber has an input portion (labeled in the annotated drawing) positioned radially outward of the dynamic scroll and an output portion (66, 78) positioned on an opposite side of the first static scroll to the dynamic scroll.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibamoto et al in view of Park et al (USPAP 2019/0264689).
As set forth above Shibamoto et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed and additionally discloses shows that the secondary bearing (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) is both in gap (gaps are labeled) fit with the drive plate and the secondary shaft. Shibamoto et al do not positively state that the primary bearing is both in interference fit with the housing and the main shaft.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park et al discloses a similar scroll compressor having a primary bearing 161 that is shown as being in contact to the main shaft and interference fit (see the abstract) with the housing. The Examiner gives official notice that it is well-known to also secure such a bearing to the main shaft by interference fit.
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 substitute an interference fit mounted roller bearing such as taught by Park et al for the primary journal type bearing of Shibamoto et al since roller and journal bearings are recognized as equivalence for their use in the main shaft support art and selection of either of these known equivalents to support the main shaft would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further, it would have been obvious to utilize interference fit to secure the primary bearing to the shaft as a well-known mechanism of holding the bearing in place which would reduce play and therefore wear.
Claim(s) 16, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibamoto et al in view of Chinese reference 1232732C (hereafter CN ‘732).
As set forth above Shibamoto et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed including disclosing a secondary shaft (21, labeled in the annotated figure above) fixed to the main shaft (20). Shibamoto et al does not disclose a connecting shaft that is inserted off-center and fixedly into the main shaft and is inserted off-center and rotatably into the secondary shaft, and an eccentric block fixed to the secondary shaft and axially and radially biased relative to the secondary shaft such that the axis of the secondary shaft and the center of gravity of the eccentric block are positioned on both sides of the axis of the main shaft.
As shown in Fig. 1 CN ‘732 discloses a similar scroll compressor in Fig. 1 having a drive assembly with a main shaft 5 and a secondary shaft 26. Further, there is a connecting shaft 5b that is inserted off-center and fixedly into the main shaft (see Fig. 1) and is inserted off-center and rotatably into the secondary shaft (clearly shown in Fig. 1 & 6), and an eccentric block 5a fixed (via the rings on the connecting shaft, see Fig. 1) to the secondary shaft and axially and radially biased relative to the secondary shaft (this is understood to be setting forth that the centers of the elements are spaced axially along the longitudinal/shaft axis and radially from the longitudinal/shaft axis) such that the axis of the secondary shaft (M in Fig. 6) and the center of gravity of the eccentric block (as shown in Fig. 6 the eccentric block is completely located on one side, i.e. the lower side, of the main shaft axis C) are positioned on both sides of the axis of the main shaft (C in Fig. 6).
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 substitute a secondary shaft connected to the main shaft via a connecting shaft and having an eccentric block/balancing weight structure for the secondary shaft and balance weight 25 structure of Shibamoto et al since each of these arrangements are recognized as equivalence for their use in the scroll compressor drive art and selection of either of these known equivalents to actuate the compressor would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further, substituting the CN ‘732 type assembly for the Shibamoto et al arrangement would result in a more axially compact compressor assembly.
Claim(s) 17, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibamoto et al in view of Suzuki et al (USPAP 2023/0258181)
As set forth above Shibamoto et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose sealing rings circumferentially arranged and radially outward of the plurality of anti-turn holes and clamped between the drive plate and the housing; and/or sealing rings circumferentially arranged and radially outward of the plurality of anti-turn holes and clamped between the drive plate and the second static scroll; and/or sealing rings circumferentially arranged and radially inward of the plurality of anti-turn holes and clamped between the drive plate and the second static scroll.
Suzuki et al discloses a scroll compressor having sealing rings (labeled in annotated Fig. 1 below) circumferentially arranged and radially outward along the outer regions of the drive plate and clamped between the drive plate and the housing (as clearly shown in the annotated figure below the seals are located in the space between the drive plate and the housing).
PNG
media_image3.png
370
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 add seals around the perimeter of the Shibamoto et al drive plate to maintain the efficiency of the machine and to prevent debris or lubricant from the drive assembly from reaching the scroll compression assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-13 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.
Claims 18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
With regards to claim 6, the prior art does not teach nor make obvious a scroll compressor as set forth in claim 5 wherein “the plurality of posts protrude from the second static scroll and are fixed to the housing, and the plurality of anti- turn holes are disposed in the drive plate”. Such a modification would require hindsight in the Examiner’s opinion and would sever the drive connection from the drive plate to the dynamic scroll. For a similar reason claim 18 is found allowable because having “the plurality of anti-turn holes is covered by the second static scroll and the housing on both sides, respectively” would require a similar modification to claim 6.
With regards to claim 9, the prior art does not teach nor make obvious a scroll compressor as set forth in claim 4 wherein “the first static scroll is provided with a first through-hole that communicates with a center of the first static scroll body opposite the side of the dynamic scroll, and the dynamic scroll is provided with a second through-hole that communicates a center of the first dynamic scroll body with a center of the second dynamic scroll body”. Such a modification would require hindsight in the Examiner’s opinion since the dynamic scroll body is solid and the output is through the shaft in order to cool the motor. Additionally changing the output to be through the dynamic scroll body would not be obvious since the first/upper scroll assembly is sometimes used as an expander (see Fig. 6). With regards to claim 10, the use as an expander also makes it unobvious to change the height of the scrolls of the upper scroll assembly since this would change the pressure ratios of just certain parts of the overall system which are designed for operation together.
With regards to claim 11, wherein “the dynamic scroll is provided with a connecting wall that crosses the second static scroll and is fixed to the drive plate, the connecting wall being located radially outward of and spaced from the second static scroll”. In the Shibamoto et al reference each of the dynamic scroll and the drive plate are of smaller outer diameter than the second static scroll and making the dynamic scroll and the drive plate extend around the outside of the second static would require extensive redesign of the system which would not have been obvious without hindsight of the instant application. Claims 12 and 13 are allowable for their dependency from claim 11.
With regards to claim 20, the prior art does not teach nor make obvious a scroll compressor as set forth in claim 19 wherein “the housing forms an annular surface arranged about the output portion inside, the first static scroll engaging the annular surface to isolate the input portion from the output portion from one another, the vortex compressor further comprising: sealing rings clamped between the first static scroll and the annular surface”. In Shibamoto et al the housing is completely spaced from the first static scroll and modification of the first static scroll and the housing to obtain the claimed arrangement would not have been obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsuchiya, Iizuka and Liepert disclose two chamber scroll compressors.
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
January 24, 2026