Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/106,562

THRUST RECEIVING MECHANISM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 25, 2025
Examiner
COMLEY, ALEXANDER BRYANT
Art Unit
3746
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Eagle Industry Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
536 granted / 941 resolved
-13.0% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
977
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.5%
+2.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 941 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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 4-6 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. Claims 4-6 each recite the limitation “each of the dynamic pressure generation portions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, there is no antecedent basis for multiple dynamic pressure generation portions (plural). At best, Claim 1 (from which Claim 4 depends) merely recites “a dynamic pressure generation portion” (singular). Due to this discrepancy in claim scope, it becomes further unclear whether the invention requires 1) one dynamic pressure generation portion or 2) a plurality of dynamic generation portions. For examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted Claims 4-6 as referring back to the “dynamic pressure generation portion” of Claims 1, 2, & 3, respectively. Appropriate corrections are required. 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 & 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH09317666 to Nishiwaki et al. (attached herein with machine translation). In regards to Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-5, Nishiwaki et al. (Nishiwaki) discloses: 1. A thrust receiving mechanism (thrust bearing 25; Fig. 1) provided on a back surface of a movable scroll (2b) that is configured to slide relative to a fixed scroll (2a) while rotating eccentrically (via eccentric 5; see Fig. 11), and configured for generating a dynamic pressure (i.e. thrust force; “the movable scroll 2b orbits with a small radius while being pressed against the thrust bearing surface with a very large force by the compressed high-pressure gas”) on the back surface of the movable scroll (para. 7), comprising: a dynamic pressure generation portion (27; Figs. 3-4) including a first groove (a first one of the grooves 29; Fig. 4) communicating (i.e. fluidly) with a low-pressure side (10; Fig. 1), and a second groove (a second (i.e. different) one of the grooves 29; Fig. 4) communicating with a buffer space between a radial inner end and a radial outer end of the thrust receiving mechanism (Figs. 3-4 show that the grooves 29 (including the groove denoted as the “second groove”) communicate with a buffer space (i.e. the oil flow space that presses against orbiting scroll 2b) that is located radially between the radially inner and outer ends of the thrust bearing plate 26). In regards to Claims 4-6, each of the dynamic pressure generation portions (see the 112b rejection above) has a diameter (i.e. an outer diameter of portion 27) smaller than a diameter (i.e. an outer diameter) of the thrust receiving mechanism (25) (it is apparent in Fig. 3 that the diameter of each dynamic pressure generation portion 27 is much smaller than the outer diameter of the thrust bearing 25), and the dynamic pressure generation portions are disposed at equal spacings in a circumferential direction of the thrust receiving mechanism (Fig. 3 clearly shows that the dynamic pressure generation portions are equally spaced circumferentially around the surface of the thrust bearing plate 26). 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,772,188 to Kimura et al. In regards to Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 12, Kimura et al. (Kimura) discloses: A thrust receiving mechanism (thrust bearing 12; Fig. 12) provided on a back surface (2b) of a movable scroll (2) that is configured to slide relative to a fixed scroll (1) while rotating eccentrically (“an orbiting movement is transmitted to the orbiting scroll 2 when the main shaft 6 is rotated”; col. 1, lines 56-57), and configured for generating a dynamic pressure (i.e. oil pressure) on the back surface of the movable scroll (via oil grooves 12a; “oil groove 12a is formed in the radial direction in a surface of the thrust bearing 12 which supports the orbiting scroll 2 in a slidable manner”; see flow arrows in Fig. 12) Kimura’s Figure 12 discloses a prior art scroll compressor with a thrust bearing 12 providing thrust support of the orbiting scroll 2. However, the embodiment of Figure 12 does not further disclose the bearing 12 having a dynamic pressure generation portion, as claimed. However, Figure 2 of Kimura discloses an improved thrust bearing plate 32 that includes a dynamic pressure generation portion (oil grooves 32b-f; Fig. 2) including a first groove (32f) communicating (i.e. fluidly) with a low-pressure side (“lubricating oil at its bottom”; col. 5, line 64; see also oil sump 17 in Fig. 12, which is the equivalent low pressure region), and a second groove (32d) communicating with a buffer space (32b-e) between a radial inner end and a radial outer end of the thrust receiving mechanism (Fig. 2 clearly shows the oil buffer spaces/grooves 32b & 32c arranged radially between the radially inner and outer ends of the thrust bearing 32). Kimura makes clear that bearing 32 of Figure 2 improves upon the bearing 12 in the scroll compressor of Figure 12 by increasing improve oil flow to the bearing and preventing bearing seizure (col. 5, line 19 – col. 6, line 26). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a scroll compressor that better avoids bearing seizure, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Figure 2 in combination with those seen in Figure 12 in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scroll compressor of Figure 12 with the improved thrust bearing 32 of Figure 2 (i.e. thereby replacing thrust bearing 12) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a scroll compressor that more reliably supplies oil to the thrust bearing and orbiting scroll, thus improving bearing reliability. In regards to Claim 2, the buffer space (32b-e; Fig. 2) is a depression (i.e. a groove). In regards to Claim 3, the depression communicates with the low-pressure side (via first grooves 32d; Fig. 2; see also oil flow arrows in Fig. 12). In regards to Claims 4-6, each of the dynamic pressure generation portions (see the 112b rejection above) has a diameter (i.e. a groove diameter) smaller than a diameter (i.e. an outer diameter) of the thrust receiving mechanism (32) (it is apparent in Fig. 2 that the diameter of the grooves 32b-32e are much smaller than the outer diameter of the thrust bearing 32), and the dynamic pressure generation portions are disposed at equal spacings in a circumferential direction of the thrust receiving mechanism (Fig. 2 clearly shows that the dynamic pressure generation portions (i.e. grooves 32b & 32c and/or grooves 32e & 32f are equally spaced circumferentially around the surface of the thrust bearing 32; grooves 32d, 32e, & 32f have a 180 degree spacing; grooves 32b & 32c each span 360 degrees). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See also JPH07208356 to Kosokabe, JPS6093192 to 丸山, and JPH0486301 to 竹下, (all attached herein with machine translation) each of which discloses a scroll compressor having thrust bearings featuring grooves. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST. 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. /ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 ABC
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 25, 2025
Application Filed
Nov 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601338
RECIPROCATING PUMP WITH RESERVOIR FOR COLLECTING AND CONTROLLING WORKING FLUID LEVEL WITHOUT THE USE OF PISTON SEALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601343
COOLING FOR BELLOWS PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584475
OIL PRESSURE SUPPLY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584440
TURBOCHARGER CONTROL SYSTEM FOR REDUCTION OF ROTATIONAL SPEED FLUCTUATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582107
PUMPS IN SERIAL CONNECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+39.1%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 941 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month