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 June 23, 2025 which canceled claims 1-3, added new claims 4-9, amended the specification, the abstract and the drawings.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 driving mechanism and the driven mechanism in claim 4.
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 § 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) 4, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crum et al (USPN 5,129,798, cited by the applicant) in view of Nagaoka et al (USPN 10,458,407).
With regards to claim 4, Crum et al disclose a co-rotating scroll compressor (see Figs. 1 & 2) comprising: a housing (26, 30); a driving mechanism (40, 42, 44); a driving scroll (76,80); a driven scroll (78,100); and a driven mechanism (104, 110, 130, 140, and the holes in plates 130, 140), wherein the driving scroll is configured to be driven to rotate by the driving mechanism about a driving axis (the rotating axis of the drive shaft 84), the driven scroll is eccentric to the driving scroll, and configured to be rotated by the driving scroll and the driven mechanism about a driven axis (see the axis of 104), the driving scroll has: a driving scroll end plate (76, 82) extending in a direction intersecting the driving axis; a driving scroll peripheral wall (120) having a cylindrically extending shape extending from the driving scroll end plate toward the driven scroll; and a driving scroll body (80) disposed inside the driving scroll peripheral wall and having a spirally extending shape extending from the driving scroll end plate toward the driven scroll (see Fig. 2), the driven scroll has: a driven scroll end plate (78, 102) extending in a direction intersecting the driven axis; and a driven scroll body (100) having a spirally extending shape extending from the driven scroll end plate toward the driving scroll, and the driving scroll body and the driven scroll body face each other to form a compression chamber (C), and are rotated to change a volume of the compression chamber, wherein the driving scroll has a cover body (140) fixed to the driving scroll peripheral wall (via post 122), the driven scroll end plate is rotatably disposed between the driving scroll peripheral wall and the cover body (see Fig. 2), and the driven scroll end plate is contactable (indirect contact via 130) with the driving scroll peripheral wall in a direction of the driving axis.
Crum et al do not disclose when the driven scroll end plate is in contact with the driving scroll peripheral wall in the direction of the driving axis, a gap is formed between the driven scroll body and the driving scroll end plate and a gap is formed between the driving scroll body and the driven scroll end plate to prevent the driven scroll body and the driving scroll body from coming into contact with the driving scroll end plate and the driven scroll end plate, respectively.
Nagaoka et al discloses a scroll compressor having a driven scroll (2) including an end plate (9c) which contacts the cylindrical wall portion of the opposing scroll member (1). A gap (see Fig. 2) is formed between the driven scroll body (2b) and the opposing scroll end plate (1k in Fig. 2) and a gap (see Fig. 2) is formed between the opposing scroll body (1) and the driven scroll end plate (the lower plate of Fig. 2) to prevent the driven scroll body and the driving scroll body from coming into contact with the driving scroll end plate and the driven scroll end plate, respectively (see at least col. 3 lines 8-15).
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 make the tip ends of the Crum et al scroll bodies be spaced via a small gap from the scroll end plates, as taught by Nagaoka et al, in order to makes sure the members do not contact and cause wear while at the same time reducing leakage and increasing efficiency (see col. 3 line 15 of Nagaoka et al).
With regards to claim 5, Crum et al in view of Nagaoka et al discloses the co-rotating scroll compressor according to claim 4, further Crum et al disclose wherein a plurality of through holes (labeled in annotated Fig. 7 below) is formed in a peripheral portion of the driven scroll end plate, and a spacer (labeled in annotated Fig. 7) is disposed in each of the through holes to position the driven scroll end plate between the driving scroll peripheral wall and the cover body so that the driven scroll end plate is rotatable.
With regards to claim 9, Crum et al in view of Nagaoka et al discloses the co-rotating scroll compressor according to claim 4, further Crum et al disclose wherein the driven scroll end plate has a peripheral portion that protrudes radially outward beyond the driving scroll peripheral wall and the cover body (see annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
403
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
-with regards to claim 6 the prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious a driving mechanism that includes a rotor that has a cylindrical shape, surrounds the driving scroll peripheral wall from an outer peripheral side of the driving scroll peripheral wall, and is fixed to the driving scroll peripheral wall, and the driven scroll end plate has a diameter greater than a diameter of the rotor. The closest prior art is represented by JP 7-229480 which discloses a driving mechanism having a stator 2, a rotor 5, a driving scroll peripheral wall 13 and a driven scroll end plate having a diameter smaller than either the a rotor 5 or the driving scroll peripheral wall 13. Given that the instant application in paragraphs [0018] & [0019] recognizes that the diameter of the driven scroll end plate being larger than the other elements has criticality it would not have been obvious to adjust the diameter size to obtain the claimed invention. 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; and
-with regards to claim 7, and claim 8 dependent therefrom, the prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious a co-rotating scroll compressor as set forth in claims 4 and 5, wherein the spacer extends in the direction of the driving axis, and a length of the spacer in the direction of the driving axis is a first length, the driving scroll peripheral wall has a first opposing surface with which one end of the spacer in the direction of the driving axis is in contact, the cover body has a second opposing surface with which the other end of the spacer in the direction of the driving axis is in contact, the driven scroll end plate has, in the direction of the driving axis, a thickness serving as a second length that is shorter than the first length, a difference in length between the first length and the second length allows the first opposing surface, the second opposing surface, and the driven scroll end plate to cooperate to define a first gap, the gap between the driven scroll body and the driving scroll end plate is a second gap, the gap between the driving scroll body and the driven scroll end plate is a third gap, and each of lengths of the second gap and the third gap is longer than a length of the first gap. Given that the instant application in paragraphs [0096- - [0098] recognizes that the claimed relationship of the gaps has criticality it would not have been obvious to adjust the diameter size to obtain the claimed invention. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al discloses a co-rotating scroll compressor.
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
May 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights