DETAILED ACTION
Claims filed 28 January 2025 are being examined. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites “the scroll cover and the first scroll are integrally molded by casting.” It is unclear whether applicant intends to claim that the scroll cover and the first scroll are a single unit molded together as one piece, or whether applicant intends to claim two separate pieces where each is integrally molded separately. Either interpretation could grammatically be drawn from the statement. Applicant’s specification is silent on this distinction. Nevertheless, there are no drawings that show the cover and a scroll made out of a single unit. Therefore, for the limited purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the scroll cover and the first scroll comprise two separated integrally molded casted elements.
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2017/0067467).
Claim 1, Lee discloses a scroll cover (fig 2, cover 190, par 0034) for a scroll compressor (scroll compressor, par 0028) comprising a scroll (scrolls 140, 150, par 0029-0030), wherein the scroll cover comprises a peripheral wall (side surface of space 191 where the wall has discharge hole 195, par 0041) and a chamber (space 191 within cover, par 0034) formed on the inner side of the peripheral wall (par 0034), wherein the chamber is configured to accommodate the scroll (fig 2 shows the cover 190 matched to scroll sufficient to receive discharge 145, par 0042), at least one discharge hole (discharge hole 195, par 0041) is provided in the peripheral wall, and the discharge hole penetrates the peripheral wall along thickness direction of the peripheral wall so as to allow fluid from the scroll to be discharged from an inner side of the peripheral wall to an outer side of the peripheral wall via the discharge hole (hole 195 guides refrigerant discharged from 191, it is formed in the side surface of 191, par 0041).
Claim 3, Lee discloses the scroll cover according to claim 1, wherein multiple crescent-shaped cavities and multiple one-way flow channels are provided on an end surface of the peripheral wall (fig 2 shows wall 191 connects to fixed scroll140; scroll 140 has multiple channels between wraps 143; that forms one-way flow channels when working with the second scroll to make compression spaces P, par 0032; examiner notes that this is conventional operation of a scroll compressor, par 0010 ), wherein each of the one-way flow channels corresponds to one of the cavities (id.), the multiple cavities are evenly distributed at equal center angle intervals in the circumferential direction of the peripheral wall, one side of each one of the cavities is open toward the chamber to allow the fluid in the chamber to flow into the one of the cavities, while the other side of each one of the cavities is in communication with the corresponding one of the one-way flow channels, one end of each one of the one-way flow channels is in communication with the corresponding one of the cavities, while the other end of each one of the one-way flow channels is in communication with the outer side of the peripheral wall so as to allow the fluid from the cavities to be discharged from the cavities to the outer side of the peripheral wall in a one-way manner.
Claim 4, Lee discloses the scroll cover according to claim 1, wherein the scroll cover is provided with any combination of: a first positioning pin hole for positioning the scroll in the chamber (fig 3 shows several fixing holes through flange 191b);a second positioning pin hole for positioning the scroll cover on a component (191 is atop scroll 140) supporting the scroll cover(fig 3, the second of the several fixing holes through flange 191b); a counterweight hole (fig 2, the space holding counterweight 65 may be called a hole under a BRI, par 0013, 0037; hole and space are synonyms), wherein the counterweight hole is filled with a counterweight material or is not filled with a counterweight material (the space/hole which has counter weight 165 will inherently meet the limitation because any counter weight hole will meet the limitation “is filled … or is not filled.”).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doepker (US 2018/022849).
Claim 1, Doepker discloses a scroll cover (fig 3, rotor 306, par 0067-0074) for a scroll compressor (id.) comprising a scroll (scrolls 276, 278), wherein the scroll cover comprises a peripheral wall (outer wall of 306 with oil outlets 324, par 0068) and a chamber (306 outer wall connects to scroll 276, par 0068; the interior of scroll 276 can be considered a chamber under a BRI) formed on the inner side of the peripheral wall (id.), wherein the chamber is configured to accommodate the scroll (fig 3, scroll of 276 has spiral wraps 282, par 0070; the spiral wrap 282 is considered the scroll), at least one discharge hole (discharge hole 324, par 0068) is provided in the peripheral wall, and the discharge hole penetrates the peripheral wall along thickness direction of the peripheral wall so as to allow fluid from the scroll to be discharged from an inner side of the peripheral wall to an outer side of the peripheral wall via the discharge hole (par 0073-0074).
Claim 2, Doepker discloses the scroll cover according to claim 1, multiple discharge holes are provided in the peripheral wall (fig 3 shows multiple discharge holes 324), the multiple discharge holes are evenly distributed at equal center angle intervals in the circumferential direction of the peripheral wall (fig 3, shows discharge holes 324 all off of the outlet passage 321; since all outlets 324 are on that one passage in the cutaway view, it is clear all the passages have the same central angle interval in the circumferential direction as passage 318, and further that all angles with discharge passages have the equivalent number of discharge passages).
Claim 4, Doepker discloses the scroll cover according to claim 1, wherein the scroll cover is provided with any combination of: a first positioning pin hole for positioning the scroll in the chamber (fig 3, the hole in bearing 256 for supporting shaft pin 290; this is the lower bearing pin); a second positioning pin hole for positioning the scroll cover on a component supporting the scroll cover (fig 3, the bearing hole in 244 for the crank pin 284 of the drive shaft, par 0015; the crank pin positions the scroll rotationally as it drives its rotation, this is the upper bearing; these position the scroll atop the component / frame 254 which supports the scroll); a counterweight hole (fig 3, the upper space in shell 224 holding motor assembly 220; hole and space are synonyms; examiner notes that a counter weight hole is not a requirement for a counterweight, just for the hole), wherein the counterweight hole is filled with a counterweight material or is not filled with a counterweight material (the space/hole will inherently meet the limitation because any counter weight hole will meet the limitation “is filled … or is not filled”, and there is no specificity to the degree to which it is filled or not filled).
Claim 6, Doepker discloses a scroll compressor (fig 3), comprising: a first scroll (the first of 276, 278); a second scroll (the second of 276, 278), wherein the second scroll and the first scroll cooperate with each other to form a compression chamber (chamber formed by spiral wraps 276 288 as a part of normal operation, par 0068, 0070, 0073), and the second scroll is capable of rotating together with the first scroll (rotate together, par 0066); a flange which slidably contacts and supports the second scroll (flange of first scroll member 276 supports the scroll member 278 function of compression; the seal engagement is a sliding contact as is known in the art, par 0026, 0070; the term “supports” is interpreted under a BRI), and the flange is directly or indirectly connected to the first scroll; and a motor capable of driving the flange to rotate (motor 20 rotates the flanges of the scrolls, par 0067; both members are rotated by the motor via the Oldham coupling, par 0066), thereby driving the first scroll to rotate (id.); wherein the scroll compressor further comprises a scroll cover according to claim 1 (see claim 1 for scroll cover), wherein the chamber of the scroll cover accommodates the first scroll and the second scroll (outer boundary of scroll 276 encloses the spirals wraps 282 and 288 of both scrolls, par 0070).
Claim 7, Doepker discloses the scroll compressor according to claim 6, wherein the first scroll is fixedly connected to the scroll cover (cover/rotor 306 is connected to scroll 276, par 0068), and the scroll cover is fixedly connected to the flange (306 is connected to the flange of scroll 276), and the first scroll rotates when the motor drives the flange to rotate (motor 20 rotates the flanges of scroll 276, par 0067), and the first scroll drives the second scroll to rotate (first scroll 276 rotates the second scroll 278, par 0066).
Claim 10, Doepker discloses the scroll compressor according to claim 6, wherein a positioning hole (bore in the hub 284 which accommodates hub 316 of the cover, par 0068), which corresponds to the positioning pin hole on the scroll cover (within hole of bearing 244), is provided on the flange, the scroll cover is positioned relative to the flange using a positioning pin (hub 316 is pin shaped, it is a portion of rotor 306, par 0068) inserted into the positioning hole of the flange and the positioning pin hole (316 is within 284 and 244).
Claim 12, Doepker discloses the scroll compressor according to claim 6, multiple discharge holes are provided in the peripheral wall (fig 3 shows multiple discharge holes 324), the multiple discharge holes are evenly distributed at equal center angle intervals in the circumferential direction of the peripheral wall (fig 3, shows discharge holes 324 all off of the outlet passage 321; since all outlets 324 are on that one passage in the cutaway view, it is clear all the passages have the same central angle interval in the circumferential direction as passage 318, and further that all angles with discharge passages have the equivalent number of discharge passages).
Claim 14, Doepker discloses the scroll compressor according to claim 6, wherein the scroll cover is provided with any combination of: a first positioning pin hole for positioning the scroll in the chamber (fig 3, the hole in bearing 256 for supporting shaft pin 290; this is the lower bearing pin);
a second positioning pin hole for positioning the scroll cover on a component supporting the scroll cover (fig 3, the bearing hole in 244 for the crank pin 284 of the drive shaft, par 0015; the crank pin positions the scroll rotationally as it drives its rotation, this is the upper bearing; these position the scroll atop the component / frame 254 which supports the scroll);
a counterweight hole (fig 3, the upper space in shell 224 holding motor assembly 220; hole and space are synonyms; examiner notes that a counter weight hole is not a requirement for a counterweight, just for the hole), wherein the counterweight hole is filled with a counterweight material or is not filled with a counterweight material (the space/hole will inherently meet the limitation because any counter weight hole will meet the limitation “is filled … or is not filled”, and there is no specificity to the degree to which it is filled or not filled).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepker.
Claim 3, Doepker discloses the scroll cover according to claim 1, wherein multiple … cavities (fig 3, the entrance to bores of outlets 324 plainly meet the limitation “cavities”) and multiple one-way flow channels are provided on an end surface of the peripheral wall (fig 3, all outlets 324 are one way in the direction of centrifugal force, par 0074), wherein each of the one-way flow channels corresponds to one of the cavities (id.), the multiple cavities are evenly distributed at equal center angle intervals in the circumferential direction of the peripheral wall (all discharges 324 have equal center angle intervals), one side of each one of the cavities is open toward the chamber to allow the fluid in the chamber to flow into the one of the cavities (the entrance to discharge 324 is closer to the scroll chamber as it throws lubricant centrifugally outward), while the other side of each one of the cavities is in communication with the corresponding one of the one-way flow channels (the entrance to the discharges 324 is fluidly connected to the middle part of the discharges 324), one end of each one of the one-way flow channels is in communication with the corresponding one of the cavities (the entrance to the middle part of discharges 324 is connected to the entrance to discharges 324), while the other end of each one of the one-way flow channels is in communication with the outer side of the peripheral wall so as to allow the fluid from the cavities to be discharged from the cavities to the outer side of the peripheral wall in a one-way manner (discharges 324 allow flow to the outer side of the peripheral wall and are one way centrifugal flow).
Doepker is silent on the cavities or discharges 324 being crescent shaped.
Nevertheless, the discharges 324 having a crescent shape is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.04). The rule is a change of shape is an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, See 2144.04(IV)(B)). In this case, the claimed crescent shape does not offer a disclosed benefit and functions only as the entrance to the one-way flow channels. Therefore, any shape which can receive centrifugally flung fluid and then transfer that fluid to a one way channel would be able to accomplish the same function. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since Doepker’s discharge 324 transports centrifugally flung fluid, it inherently must have an entrance that allows centrifugally flung fluid to accumulate and then exit through the discharge. Therefore the crescent shape is obvious as a design choice as there is no evidence that the particular configuration was significant.
Claim 13, Doepker discloses the scroll compressor according to claim 6, wherein multiple … cavities (fig 3, the entrance to bores of outlets 324 plainly meet the limitation “cavities”) and multiple one-way flow channels are provided on an end surface of the peripheral wall (fig 3, all outlets 324 are one way in the direction of centrifugal force, par 0074), wherein each of the one-way flow channels corresponds to one of the cavities (id.), the multiple cavities are evenly distributed at equal center angle intervals in the circumferential direction of the peripheral wall (all discharges 324 have equal center angle intervals), one side of each one of the cavities is open toward the chamber to allow the fluid in the chamber to flow into the one of the cavities (the entrance to discharge 324 is closer to the scroll chamber as it throws lubricant centrifugally outward), while the other side of each one of the cavities is in communication with the corresponding one of the one-way flow channels (the entrance to the discharges 324 is fluidly connected to the middle part of the discharges 324), one end of each one of the one-way flow channels is in communication with the corresponding one of the cavities (the entrance to the middle part of discharges 324 is connected to the entrance to discharges 324), while the other end of each one of the one-way flow channels is in communication with the outer side of the peripheral wall so as to allow the fluid from the cavities to be discharged from the cavities to the outer side of the peripheral wall in a one-way manner (discharges 324 allow flow to the outer side of the peripheral wall and are one way centrifugal flow).
Doepker is silent on the cavities or discharges 324 being crescent shaped.
Nevertheless, the discharges 324 having a crescent shape is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.04). The rule is a change of shape is an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, See 2144.04(IV)(B)). In this case, the claimed crescent shape does not offer a disclosed benefit and functions only as the entrance to the one-way flow channels. Therefore, any shape which can receive centrifugally flung fluid and then transfer that fluid to a one way channel would be able to accomplish the same function. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since Doepker’s discharge 324 transports centrifugally flung fluid, it inherently must have an entrance that allows centrifugally flung fluid to accumulate and then exit through the discharge. Therefore the crescent shape is obvious as a design choice as there is no evidence that the particular configuration was significant.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Claim 5, Lee discloses the scroll cover according to claim 1. Lee is silent on wherein the scroll cover is made of aluminum alloy or cast iron.
Nevertheless, Lee teaches the scrolls made of aluminum to lower weight (par 0031, 0037, 0052), which suggests that aluminum is an art recognize suitable material for the internal components of a scroll pump.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the scroll cover of aluminum as art recognized suitable material (MPEP 2144.07). The rule is that The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, Lee recognizes aluminum as a suitable material in the material of a scroll compressor internals in order to reduce weight. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that its suitability is also related to its material strength, toughness, and chemical reactivity which relates to its exposure to the pressures, stresses, and fluids of the pump.
Therefore, it is obvious to manufacture the cover of aluminum as suggested by Lee manufacturing the pump scrolls of aluminum because aluminum is a suitable material for similarly situated internal components of the scroll compressor exposed to the same fluids and pressures as the scroll.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepker in view of Lee.
Claim 5, Doepker discloses the scroll cover according to claim 1. Doepker is silent wherein the scroll cover is made of aluminum alloy or cast iron.
Lee teaches the scrolls made of aluminum to lower weight (par 0031, 0037, 0052), which suggests that aluminum is an art recognize suitable material for the internal components of a scroll pump.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the scroll cover of Doepker of aluminum as art recognized suitable material as suggested by Lee (MPEP 2144.07). The rule is that The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, Lee recognizes aluminum as a suitable material in the material of a scroll compressor internals in order to reduce weight. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that its suitability is also related to its material strength, toughness, and chemical reactivity which relates to its exposure to the pressures, stresses, and fluids of the pump.
Claim 15, Doepker discloses the scroll compressor according to claim 6. Doepker is silent wherein the scroll cover is made of aluminum alloy or cast iron.
Lee teaches the scrolls made of aluminum to lower weight (par 0031, 0037, 0052), which suggests that aluminum is an art recognize suitable material for the internal components of a scroll pump.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the scroll cover of Doepker of aluminum as art recognized suitable material as suggested by Lee (MPEP 2144.07). The rule is that The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, Lee recognizes aluminum as a suitable material in the material of a scroll compressor internals in order to reduce weight. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that its suitability is also related to its material strength, toughness, and chemical reactivity which relates to its exposure to the pressures, stresses, and fluids of the pump.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepker in view of Liu (WO 2019/057056) in view of Mahure (US 10337514).
Claim 11, Doepker discloses the scroll compressor according to claim 6. Doepker is silent on the scroll cover and the first scroll are integrally molded by casting.
Nevertheless, claim 11 is rejected as product by process because the molding of the scroll cover and the first cover only refer to process of manufacture and do not add or imply any structure to either element (See MPEP 2113). The rule is that "[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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Liu evidences that casting molding is conventionally used in manufacturing the scroll of a scroll compressor (pg 3) and casting the scroll end plate, hub, blade (pg 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally mold the scroll of Doepker by integral molding as taught by Liu to provide a complex shape with a known centroid that for easing balancing of the device during mass production.
Mahure evidences that cast molding (c 5 ln 25-30) is conventionally used in manufacturing the cover (200) or wall that separates the scroll from the discharge (c 12 ln 14-17).
In would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally mold the scroll cover at the discharge side of Doepker in view of Liu by integral cast molding as taught by Mahure to provide high strength thermal insulative partitions that are manufactured out of insulative materials generally manufactured by molding (Mahure, c 12 ln 50-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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 nearest prior art is Doepker. Doepker does not disclose:
Claim 8, the scroll compressor according to claim 7, wherein the first scroll is provided above the second scroll, the second scroll is provided above the flange, and
the height at which the discharge hole is located is higher than or equal to the height at which the contact surface between the flange and the second scroll plate is located.
Claim 9. The scroll compressor according to claim 7, wherein at least one additional discharge hole is provided in the flange, the additional discharge hole allowing fluid to be discharged from the chamber to the outer side of the flange.
The recited structure is critical because it distinguishes the arrangement of flange to the first and second scroll, and specifies the discharge hole which provides the lubrication separation that benefits the particular arrangement of flange, first scroll and second scroll that is not present in the prior art, and there is no motivation to modify the prior art to incorporate said structure or provide said arrangement. Therefore, the sum of these limitations is not disclosed by the prior art and it would not be obvious to combine references in an effort to meet all of the claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US 2018/0080446) co-rotating scroll compressor.
Mori (US 2002/0150485) co-rotating scroll compressor.
Kim (US 2007/0140884) fig 2, scroll compressor with oil separator discharge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights