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 .
Responsive to correspondence
This office action is in response to correspondence filed on 02/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/19/2025 was filed before the first action on the merits. This submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Accordingly, the IDS has been fully considered by the Office.
Abstract
The abstract filed 02/19/2025 appears to be acceptable.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Publication number 2017/0234130 A1 to YAMAZAKI et al. (YAMAZAKI) in view of U.S Patent 5632612 to SHAFFER (SHAFFER).
Re: Claim 1:
YAMAZAKI discloses:
A scroll-type fluid machine comprising:
an orbiting scroll (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: orbiting scroll 3) that executes orbital motion (this is implied);
a drive shaft (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: drive shaft 4) that drives the orbiting scroll (orbiting scroll 3 is driven through a drive shaft 4);
a rotation prevention mechanism (See Figs.1-4: ¶0018: multiple rotation prevention mechanisms (rotation prevention cranks) that prevents rotation of the orbiting scroll (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: orbiting scroll 3);
a casing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: casing 1) that houses the orbiting scroll (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: orbiting scroll 3) and the rotation prevention mechanism (See Figs.1-4: ¶0018: multiple rotation prevention mechanisms (rotation prevention cranks);
a leg section (See Fig . 3 as annotated by the examiner: leg section L disposed on a radially outer edge of casing 1 as shown) that is disposed on a radially outer edge portion of the casing and supports the casing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: casing 1); and
a reinforcing rib (See Fig . 3 as annotated by the examiner: ribs extending on the leg section) that extends on the leg section in an axial direction of the drive shaft (See Fig . 3 as annotated by the examiner: in axial direction of the drive shaft as shown), wherein
the rotation prevention mechanism (See Figs.1-4: ¶0018: multiple rotation prevention mechanisms (rotation prevention cranks) include a plurality of auxiliary crank mechanisms that are interposed between the orbiting scroll (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: orbiting scroll 3) and the casing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: casing 1) and are arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the orbiting scroll (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: rotating scroll side rotation prevention crank bearing 9),
the plurality of auxiliary crank mechanisms each have
a first bearing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0018: side-rotation prevention crank bearing 9) disposed on a side of the orbiting scroll (See Figs.1-4: ¶0018) ,
a second bearing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0018: an orbiting scroll side-rotation prevention crank bearing 8 attached to the orbiting scroll 3) disposed on a side of the casing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: casing 1), and
an auxiliary crank (See Figs.1-4: ¶0019: rotation prevention crankshaft 7) coupled on one side to the first bearing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: first bearing 9) and on another side to the second bearing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: second bearing 8), the casing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: casing 1) includes bearing bosses that each house the second bearing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: second bearing 8), the bearing bosses each have
a bearing housing portion (See Figs.1-4: BH as shown in figures 1-2 as annotated by the examiner), and
a opening that extends from the bearing housing portion (See Figs.1-4: bearing housing portion BH as annotated by the examiner in figure 1) to an axially opposite load side (See Figs.1-4: along drive shaft 4),
the bearing housing portion has
an outer circumferential surface (See Figs.1-4: outer circumferential surface CS as annotated by the examiner in figure 1) that forms part of an outer surface of the casing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: casing 1) and is located radially outside the second bearing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: second bearing 8 as shown), and
an axial end surface (See Figs.1-4) that forms part of the outer surface of the casing (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: casing 1 as shown in figure 1), extends radially inward from a circumferential edge (See Figs.1-4: ¶0016: outer axial end surface of casing 1 extends radially inward as shown) of the outer circumferential surface, and is oriented in the axial direction (See Figs.1-4: along axial direction along drive shaft 4), and
YAMAZAKI discloses substantially all the limitations of claim 1, YAMAZAKI is silent regarding:
the reinforcing rib extends from the leg section to one of the bearing bosses so as to be connected to the leg section and to be connected to the outer circumferential surface and the axial end surface of the bearing housing portion.
However, SHAFFER teaches:
the reinforcing rib extends (SHAFFER: See Fig.8 reinforcing rib 151) from the leg section to one of the bearing bosses (SHAFFER: See FIG. 8-9, boss surrounding idler crank 111) so as to be connected to the leg section and to be connected to the outer circumferential surface and the axial end surface of the bearing housing portion.
Since the invention described in YAMAZAKI and the invention described in SHAFFER have a rib in common, and belong to the same technical field of scroll type fluid machine, in the reinforcement rib described in YAMAZAKI (YAMAZAKI See Figs. 3-4), in accordance with the description in SHAFFER, it would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of SHAFFER to configure YAMAZAKI so that it is also connected to the end face of the bearing boss.
PNG
media_image1.png
611
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
614
857
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: Claim 2:
YAMAZAKI modified by SHAFFER discloses:
The scroll-type fluid machine according to claim 1, the modified YAMAZAKI discloses all the limitations of claim1, and wherein the reinforcing rib extends to a position of a tip of the leg section in the axial direction (YAMAZAKI: See Fig.3 as annotated by the examiner, discloses a rib extending to a position of a tip of the leg section , the figure 4 also shows same feature). Additionally extending reinforcing rib extend to the tip of the leg section is merely a matter of design option, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have extended the rib for additional reinforcement depending on the compressor structural requirement for more robust construction. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable options involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 3:
YAMAZAKI modified by SHAFFER discloses:
The scroll-type fluid machine according to claim 1, the modified YAMAZAKI discloses all the limitations of claim1, and a reinforcing rib in axial direction, however modified YAMAZAKI is silent regarding specific details of the reinforcing rib as specified below,
wherein a tip edge of the reinforcing rib in the axial direction is formed by a straight line-shaped first tip side and a straight line-shaped second tip side, the first tip side extending upward from the leg section orthogonally to the axial direction, the second tip side being inclined with respect to the first tip side so as to be connected to an end of the first tip side and the axial end surface of the bearing housing portion.
However, the specific details as claimed are merely one of the several design options to reinforce the structure of the claimed scroll compressor which , and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have opted the rib structure depending on the robustness required for a particular scroll compressor.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable options involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 5:
YAMAZAKI modified by SHAFFER discloses:
The scroll-type fluid machine according to claim 1, the modified YAMAZAKI discloses all the limitations of claim1, and wherein the reinforcing rib has a tip in the axial direction on the leg section at an intermediate position between a tip of the leg section in the axial direction (YAMAZAKI: See Fig. 4 as annotated by the examine) and a position of the axial end surface of the bearing bosses housing portion in the axial direction (YAMAZAKI: See FIG. 3-4: reinforcing rib extends from the leg to the outer peripheral surface of the bearing boss so that the distance is the shortest distance).
Re: Claim 6:
YAMAZAKI modified by SHAFFER discloses:
The scroll-type fluid machine according to claim 1, the modified YAMAZAKI discloses all the limitations of claim1, and wherein a tip edge of the reinforcing rib in the axial direction has a straight-line shape formed by one side (YAMAZAKI: See Figs.3-4: figures show that distal end edge of the reinforcing rib in the axial direction has a linear shape constituted by one side).
Re: Claim 9:
YAMAZAKI modified by SHAFFER discloses:
The scroll-type fluid machine according to claim 1, the modified YAMAZAKI discloses all the limitations of claim1, and wherein
the reinforcing rib extends from the leg section to a bearing boss closest to the leg section among the bearing bosses (YAMAZAKI: as shown in figures 3-4 the reinforcing ribs extends from the leg section to among the bearing bosses , the bearing boss closest to the leg section).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Publication number 20170234130 A1 to YAMAZAKI et al. (YAMAZAKI) in view of U.S Patent 5632612 to SHAFFER (SHAFFER) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2012196045 A to IWAKI TAKAHIRO (IWAKI).
Re: Claims 7 and 8:
YAMAZAKI modified by SHAFFER discloses:
The scroll-type fluid machine according to claim 1, and claim 7 the modified YAMAZAKI discloses all the limitations of claim1, the modified YAMAZAKI is silent regarding:
wherein the leg section has a thinned portion with a recessed shape in a bottom face that becomes a contact side in installation (as claimed in claim 7).
However, IWAKI teaches:
wherein the leg section has a thinned portion with a recessed shape in a bottom face that becomes a contact side in installation (IWAKI: See Fig.6 : ¶0006-¶0008: discloses a feature in which leg section has a plurality of recessed portions that are recessed on a bottom surface that serves a contact side when installed, and the recessed portions are disposed such that lattice-shape ribs are defined on the bottom surface as claimed in claim 8).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure leg section of the modified YAMAZAKI having a thin portion with recessed shape in a bottom face to become a contact side in installation which would have yielded predictable results of robust reinforcement during installation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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 prior art fails to discloses claimed invention recited in claim 4
wherein the casing has a housing portion inside which the orbiting scroll is positioned, and an annular bottom portion that is provided at an end portion of the housing portion on one side in the axial direction, and has the bearing bosses arranged circumferentially, the leg section is positioned on each of both left and right sides at a radially outer edge portion of the housing portion when being viewed in the axial direction, when the leg sections are set on a lower side, one of the bearing bosses is arranged at a position directly above each of the leg sections, and the reinforcing rib extends from one of the leg sections to the outer circumferential surface of the bearing housing portion such that an extension distance is a shortest distance when combined with the limitations of base claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
February 11, 2026