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 02/27/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/28/2025 and 12/12/2025 were filed before the first action on the merits. This submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Accordingly, these have been fully considered by the Office.
Abstract
The abstract filed 02/27/2025 appears to be acceptable.
Claim Objections
Following claim(s) are objected to because of the grammatical errors and informalities, for consistency and accuracy of the claim languages:
Claim 6 lines 1-2 recites “according to claim 2 4”, this should be read as “according to claim 2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006138243 A to TSUNODA (TSUNODA) in view of JP 3047653 B2 (JP).
Re: Claim 1:
TSUNODA discloses:
A restriction component (See Figs.1-3: ¶0025: rotation prevention mechanism 20) that is provided on a back surface of a movable scroll (See Figs.1-3: ¶0025: movable scroll 12) that is configured to slide relative to a fixed scroll (See Fig.2: ¶0025: fixed scroll 11) while rotating eccentrically, and that restricts a rotation of the movable scroll (See Figs.1-3: ¶0025: movable scroll 12) while allowing the eccentric rotation of the movable scroll (See Figs.1-3: ¶0025: movable scroll 12),
TSUNODA substantially discloses all the limitations of claim 1, TSUDONA is silent regarding:
the restriction component is provided with a dynamic pressure generating groove configured for generating a dynamic pressure at a location facing the movable scroll.
However, JP teaches:
the restriction component is provided with a dynamic pressure generating groove configured for generating a dynamic pressure at a location facing the movable scroll (JP: See Figs. 1-3: ¶0033: groove 12 for dynamic pressure generation facing movable scroll 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure TSUNODA to include the teachings of JP, because JP teaches that this configuration provides the two spiral components slide in close contact with each other in the axial direction, reducing leakage of refrigerant gas between the compression chambers and achieving high compression efficiency (JP: ¶0018).
Re: Claims 2 and 3:
TSUNODA modified by JP discloses:
The restriction component according to claim 1, modified TSUNODA discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and limitations of claims 2 and 3,
wherein the restriction component is comprised of a pin inserted into a pocket provided in the movable scroll, and a rotating body rotatably attached to the pin, and the dynamic pressure generation groove is formed in the rotating body (as claimed in claim 2), and wherein the rotating body is eccentrically attached to the pin (as claimed in claim 3) (TSUNODA: See Figs. 1-3: ¶0026: the regulating component is composed of a pin 21 inserted into a pocket provided in the movable scroll 12 as shown in figure 1, and a rotating body rotatably attached to the pin 21 eccentrically relative to the pin 21) .
Re: Claim 4:
TSUNODA modified by JP discloses:
The restriction component according to claim 2 modified TSUNODA discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and wherein one end of the dynamic pressure generation groove is configured to communicate with an outside of the rotating body (JP: See Figs. 1-3: the dynamic pressure generation groove 12 communicates with an outside of the movable scroll 13 as described in figures 1-3 and ¶0019-¶0021).
Re: Claim 5:
TSUNODA modified by JP discloses:
The restriction component according to claim 2, modified TSUNODA discloses all the limitations of claim 2 , and wherein the dynamic pressure generation groove has an arcuate shape (JP: See Figs. 1-3: the dynamic pressure generation groove 12 is arcuate as shown in figure 2).
Re: Claims 6-8:
TSUNODA modified by JP discloses:
The restriction component according to claim 2, 3 or 4, wherein the dynamic pressure generation groove is provided in the rotating body to face a bottom surface of the pocket as claimed in claims 6-8 respectively (JP: discloses dynamic pressure generating grooves may be divided in in several portions on the tip surface of at least one of the fixed volute vanes or the orbiting volute vanes as explained in ¶0005-¶0008).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2022009769 A1 and U.S Publication number 2023/0296176 A1.
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
January 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights