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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of January 28, 2025 which amended claims 1-10, provided a substitute specification and a new abstract.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “stator grooves” and the “rotor-pole pairs” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification is approved and entered.
The amended abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should not include legal phraseology, such as “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10 “the side” should be “a side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12 “the side” should be “a side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7 all the variations after “at least 1%” are already covered by the “at least 1%” limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 5 and 6 all the variations after “at least 1%” are already covered by the “at least 1%” limitation. 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 “electric drive unit” 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 1-10 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 1 is vague and indefinite because in lines 15-17 it is unclear if the material after “preferably”, i.e., the ring elements, are being positively set forth or not. For purposes of examination the ring will not be considered as being positively claimed.
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite because in lines 3 and 4 it is unclear if the material after the “in particular” and the “preferably” limitations are being positively set forth or not. For purposes of examination the ring will not be considered as being positively claimed. For purposes of examination the material is not required.
Claim 4 is vague and indefinite because in lines 6 and 7 it is unclear if the material after the “in particular” limitation is being positively set forth or not. For purposes of examination the ring will not be considered as being positively claimed. For purposes of examination the material is not required. Further, in line 7 it is unclear how one angle can be both larger and smaller than another pin pair angle. The examiner suggests setting forth that the angles differ by the noted angles.
Claim 5 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear which of the earlier axes are being referenced by “the axis” in line 5. Also, it is unclear if the material after “in particular” is further limiting or not. Further, in line 7, it is unclear how one diameter can be both larger and smaller than another diameter in lines 5 and 6.
Claims 6 and 7 are vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the material after each “in particular” and each “preferably” is intended to limit the claim or not. Also, in lines 5 and 6 the phrase “a rotor comprising, in particular ten, rotor-pole pairs, and preferably seven pins” is confusing. First, it is unclear if “pins” was a typographical error and should have been “pairs”, second it is unclear if the “ten” is a preference for the pairs or something else; and third it is unclear what structure is represented by a “rotor-pole pair” (does this limitation make reference to “north-south pole pairs”, to adjacent magnet pole pairs or to the number of rotors having a pole? No description or illustration has been provided in the specification. In claim 7 it is unclear how “can only be divided by the number of pins with a remainder” limits the claim since the remainder value has not been described as non-zero.
Claims not specifically mentioned are indefinite since they depend from one of the above claims.
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) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102019206544A1 (cited by applicant, hereafter DE ’544) in view of JP2007239539A (cited by applicant, hereafter JP ‘539).
With regards to claims 1 and 4, DE ‘544 discloses a scroll compressor (see Fig. 3) comprising a housing (50) with a housing cover (such as the integral end wall at the right end of the housing) and an intermediate housing wall (68), an electric drive unit (32, 44) connected to an eccentric bearing (having an inner race 72) by means of a drive shaft (36) having an axis (28), a movable displacement spiral (58) connected to the eccentric bearing in a rotatable manner around an eccentric axis (the axis of pin 70), and a stationary counter-spiral (56) engaged with the displacement spiral; wherein the intermediate housing wall (68) and the displacement spiral (14) are arranged on a suction side (the left side of the compression space in Fig. 3), and the housing cover and the counter-spiral are arranged on a high- pressure side (the right side of the compression space), on the side of the displacement spiral facing the suction side, a plurality of cylindrical recesses (88, see Fig. 7) is formed, and on the side of the intermediate housing wall facing the high-pressure side, pins (74) are arranged in such a way that they project into the cylindrical recesses (see Figs. 3 & 7)) and co-operate therewith so that a guide for the movable displacement spiral is formed, and, wherein the pins (88) span an imaginary polygon (P, defined by the pin axes of Fig. 4). However, DE ‘544 does not teach that wherein at least one interior angle of the polygon (P) differs by 120 degrees from another of the interior angles.
JP ‘539 discloses a similar scroll compressor having a drive unit 30 which drives a displacement scroll (23) which engages a stationary scroll (24). The displacement scroll includes recesses (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5) and there are pins (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) that extend from an intermediate housing wall (21) into the recesses. As shown in Fig. 2 the pins are arranged in a polygon wherein at least one interior angle of the polygon (see the angles defined by M4,M3, M2) differs from another of the interior angles (see the angles defined by M1,M6, M5); or, as set forth in claim 4 a pair of adjacent pins spans a pin pair angle around the axis of the drive shaft, wherein the pin pair angle of one pair differs from the pin pair angle of at least one other pair (see angle 1 and angle 2 in the annotated figure below).
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 arrange the recess and pins of DE ‘544 so that one of the interior angles has an interior angle different than an interior angle of another of the interior angles, as taught by JP ‘539, in order to reduce the noise and vibration of the scroll compressor during operation (see the abstract of JP ‘539).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, each of DE ‘544 and JP ‘539 teach of 6 pin-recess pairs and therefore three, four and five pins have been provided.
With regards to claim 3, DE ‘544 teaches that the recesses are provided with a non-metallic material (86, see [0051]).
With regards to claims 8 and 9 DE ‘544 teaches of a motor vehicle (2, see Fig. 1) having an air conditioning system (12, 14, 16) including a scroll compressor (12, see Figs. 2 and 3).
With regards to claim 10 the examiner gives official note that hybrid drive arrangements for vehicles are well-known and that at the time of effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a hybrid drive as the drive source for the DE ‘544 vehicle as a well-known drive source that has increased efficiency.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘544 in view of JP ‘539 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mera et al (USPN 9,243,638).
As set forth above DE ‘544 in view of JP ‘539 discloses a scroll compressor as set forth in claim 1 including an electric drive unit having a stator (44) and a rotor (32), but does not disclose that the stator includes grooves and that there are rotor-pole pairs (claim 6) or that the number of stator grooves or rotor-pole pairs can only be divided by the number of pins with a remainder (claim 7).
Mera et al disclose a scroll compressor (20, 21, 22) driven by an electric drive unit (24,25) where the stator includes grooves (27s) and the rotor includes rotor-pole pairs (24b).
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 construct, in DE ‘544, the stator to have grooves and the rotor to have rotor-pole pairs, as taught by Mera et al, as a well-known construction for allowing the magnetic drive fields to be constructed and provided in the electric drive unit.
With regards to claim 7 regardless of the number of pins in each of the cited references there are pins present and once the number of slots or rotor-pole pairs is divided by the number of pins there will be a remainder, either a non-zero or a zero remainder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not teach or make obvious a scroll compressor as claimed having pins located at different diameters. It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the available prior art in the claimed manner is neither contemplated nor foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamamoto et al (USPN 5,575,635) discloses a scroll compressor having pins which create an imaginary polygon having interior angles of 90 degrees (see Fig. 4).
Conclusion
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
August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights