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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 20, applicant claims a securing ring that axially guides the eccentric shaft.
There are insufficient details provided as to the structure of the securing ring and insufficient details provided as to how the securing ring axially guides the eccentric shaft.
MPEP2163 II. A. 3. at paragraph three states: "An applicant may show possession of an invention by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole." Regarding the written description requirement for claim 20, insufficient details of the securing ring are shown in the drawings.
MPEP 2163 I. at paragraph two states: "To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention." Regarding the disclosure in the specification concerning the securing ring, insufficient details of the securing ring are provided in the specification.
As set forth in MPEP 2166 at form paragraph 7.31.01, the questions the examiner asked which were not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raised doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, include:
What in particular is the structure of the securing ring?
How in particular does the securing ring axially guide the eccentric shaft?
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, claim 20 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-20 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 10 states “at least one piston/working space combination”. It is unclear what this “/” means in the claim and it is therefore the intended scope of this limitation is unclear. Other recitations of this limitation in the dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
The term “close” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 refers to a single bearing. It is unclear if the single bearing is one of the bearings already claimed, or not.
The claims will be examined as best understood under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and interpretations of the indefinite limitations will be provided as mappings to the disclosure of the prior art as indicated in the prior art rejections below as per MPEP 2173.06 I.
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to the claims rejected in detail above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakazawa US 20030138333.
Nakazawa discloses:
10. (New) A radial piston compressor, comprising: a compressor unit 1; and a drive device 2 for driving the compressor unit; wherein the compressor unit includes at least one piston/working space combination (3a, 4) arranged radially around an eccentric shaft 21; wherein each piston/working space combination includes a working space 4 having a piston 3a displaceably received therein, wherein the piston is driven by the eccentric shaft 21 ; wherein the eccentric shaft is rotatably supported in the radial piston compressor by at least three bearings (see e.g. Figs 1-2 at 71, 72, 73).
11. (New) The radial piston compressor as claimed in claim 10, wherein the compressor unit includes a plurality of piston/working space combinations arranged radially around the eccentric shaft and wherein the eccentric shaft is rotatably supported in the radial piston compressor by exactly three bearings (see e.g. Figs 1-2 at 71, 72, 73).
12. (New) The radial piston compressor as claimed in claim 10, wherein the radial piston compressor includes a drive housing 2c, a compressor housing 1, and a compressor housing cover (see annotated Fig 1 herein).
PNG
media_image1.png
697
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
14. (New) The radial piston compressor as claimed in claim 12, wherein a first bearing and a second bearing are received in the compressor housing (see e.g. 73 and 72 of Nakazawa in Figs 1-2) and a third bearing is received in the drive housing (see e.g. Figs 1-2 of Nakazawa wherein 71 is in drive housing).
15. (New) The radial piston compressor as claimed in claim 10, wherein the shaft as a result of the three bearing locations and the arrangement thereof has a vibration node, wherein this vibration node is arranged in the axial position thereof close to the location of a load introduction (see e.g. Fig 2 wherein close is a relative term and applicant has provided no guidance as to the intended scope of the term).
16. (New) The radial piston compressor as claimed in claim 10, wherein the bearings are in the form of plain or roller bearings (see e.g. Fig 2).
17. (New) The radial piston compressor as claimed in claim 10, wherein the bearings are in the form of cylinder roller bearings or ball bearings (see e.g. Fig 2).
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.
Claim(s) 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa US 20030138333 in view of Hsieh US 20120009073.
Regarding claim 13, Nakazawa discloses a second bearing is received in the compressor housing (see e.g. 72 of Nakazawa in Fig 2 and 121 of Hsieh in Fig 4), and a third bearing is received in the drive housing (see e.g. 71 in Fig 2 of Nakazawa
Hsieh discloses wherein a second bearing is received in the compressor housing (see e.g. 72 of Nakazawa in Fig 2), and a third bearing is received in the drive housing (see e.g. 71 in Fig 2 of Nakazawa).
Nakazawa does not disclose a first bearing is received in the compressor housing cover.
However, Hsieh discloses the use of a housing cover (13) having a bearing therein (see e.g. 130 in Fig 4 of Hsieh received in cover 13).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a cover as taught by Hsieh in the system of Nakazawa to gain the benefit of facilitating maintenance, replacement, and/or cleaning of components in the housing.
Regarding claim 20, Nakazawa discloses wherein the eccentric shaft is axially guided by a securing ring (as best understood, see 9 of Nakazawa). Applicant has not provided any details of the securing ring including how the securing ring axially guides the shaft in order to understand the scope of what is being claimed. Thus, additionally see R of Hsieh in annotated Fig 4 herein.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a securing ring as taught by Hsieh in the system of Nakazawa to gain the benefit of utilizing a known component for radial piston pumps.
PNG
media_image2.png
625
867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa US 20030138333 in view of Ferris US 1901501.
Nakazawa as modified above does not disclose the limitations of claim 18.
Ferris discloses wherein a single bearing 32 is in the form of an axial bearing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a thrust bearing as taught by Ferris in the system of Nakazawa to gain the benefit of accounting for axial forces on the shaft.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa US 20030138333 in view of Koda US 20170110928.
Regarding claim 19, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the bearings would be press fit into the housing to avoid spinning of the bearings which would damage the housing and/or bearing. In any event, Koda discloses press fitting bearings into a housing (see e.g. claim 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to press fit the bearings as taught by Koda in the system of Nakazawa to gain the benefit of ensuring the bearings don’t spin in the housing.
Conclusion
See form PTO-892 for additional prior art made of record but not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights