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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on April 7th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s argument is not well taken. There would, in fact, be a serious search burden placed upon to examiner to examiner both Species A and B in light of their mutually exclusive features. Species A requires respective integrated rotary unions providing distinct flow paths that cool respective scrolls, whereas Species B requires cooling of two scrolls via fluid transfer tubes interconnecting a single integrated rotary union. Stated another way, Species A does not require serially cooled scrolls via fluid transfer conduits and a single integrated rotary union, while Species B does not require parallel flow paths that cool respective scrolls via respective integrated rotary unions. These are distinct and discrete pump cooling arrangements requiring dissimilar search methodologies that invoke different subclass searches, and as such, a serious search burden would be imposed were the examiner required to examine both species. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10 & 15 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, & 16-20 will be examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “integrated air-to-liquid pre-cooler” of Claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “408”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 8 & 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, lines 2-3 should read “between the scroll coolant channel of the first scroll and the shaft outflow channel of the first scroll shaft”
Claim 12, line 16 should read “flow path running from a first inflow channel”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation “an integrated rotary union arranged between the housing and the first scroll shaft”; this renders the claim indefinite because the particular structure being required cannot be discerned. In this instance, upon reviewing Applicant’s originally filed specification, it is not clear what particular element depicted in the invention constitutes “an integrated rotary union arranged between the housing and the first scroll shaft”. The figures (see for example Figures 1C-1D) generally label an end region of the scroll device as “115”, which denotes an “integrated rotary union” according to the specification. However, it is not clear from the specification or drawings which elements are actually part of the integrated rotary union and which elements are not. Figure 1C clearly shows that not all of the portions shown at 115 are “arranged between the housing and the first scroll shaft”, as claimed. For example, none of elements 154A, 154B, 156A, 156B, 157A, 157B, 160A, or 160B are “arranged between the housing and the first scroll shaft”. In fact, as far as the examiner understands, it appears that the only elements that are “arranged between the housing and the first scroll shaft” are bearings 147. However, bearings 147 do not appear to be configured to transmit coolant as recited in Claim 1 because bearings 147 do not possess/form any of the channels recited in the claim. As such, it is not clear how the bearings 147 would (or could) be construed as being configured to transfer coolant in the manner claimed. Therefore, for all of these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, and as such, the required structural arrangement of the “integrated rotary union” cannot be determined, rendering the claims indefinite. Claim 12 is rendered indefinite for the same reasons. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted “integrated rotary union” as any portion of a scroll device containing bearings.
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) 1-2, 7, 9, & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10031143 to Holzapfel (attached herein with translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
737
1190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1004
1136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 12, and with particular reference to Figures 1-2 shown immediately above, Holzapfel discloses:
1. A co-rotating scroll device (1; Fig. 1; para. 19), comprising: a housing (5, 10, 27) extending a length from a first end (i.e. left end) of the co-rotating scroll device to a second end (i.e. right end) of the co-rotating scroll device; a first scroll (7) comprising a first involute disposed in the housing (apparent in Fig. 1); a first scroll shaft (8) comprising a first shaft axis (A), wherein the first scroll shaft is rotationally fixed to the first scroll (Fig. 1), wherein the first scroll is configured to rotate about the first shaft axis relative to the housing (para. 19); a second scroll (6) comprising a second involute disposed in the housing (apparent in Fig. 1); a second scroll shaft (49) comprising a second shaft axis (A), wherein the second scroll shaft is rotationally fixed to the second scroll (Fig. 1), wherein the second scroll is configured to rotate about the second shaft axis relative to the housing (para. 19), wherein the first involute and the second involute are enmeshed with one another (Fig. 1), wherein the first shaft axis is parallel to and offset from the second shaft axis (Fig. 1); and an integrated rotary union (9) arranged between the housing and the first scroll shaft (Figs. 1-2), wherein the integrated rotary union is configured to transmit coolant (“cooling air flow”) through a sealed fluid flow path (34) running from an inflow channel (31; Fig. 2) of the housing to a shaft inflow channel (i.e. left/intake portion of shaft channel 21; Fig. 2) of the first scroll shaft, through a scroll coolant channel (i.e. cooling channels formed by scroll fins 18) of the first scroll (Fig. 2), through a shaft outflow channel (i.e. right/discharge portion of shaft channel 21) of the first scroll shaft, and to an outflow channel of the housing (labeled by the examiner in Fig. 1 immediately above, for clarity) (the Examiner notes that the claim language does not require any particular order/sequence as it relates to the various claimed channels; other than requiring the inflow channel of the housing to be the beginning portion of the flow path, the other portions can be arranged in any order).
12. A co-rotating scroll device (1; Fig. 1; para. 19), comprising: a housing (5, 10) extending a length from a first end (i.e. left end) of the co-rotating scroll device to a second end (i.e. right end) of the co-rotating scroll device; a first scroll (7) comprising a first involute disposed in the housing (apparent in Fig. 1); a first scroll shaft (8) comprising a first shaft axis (A), wherein the first scroll shaft is rotationally fixed to the first scroll (Fig. 1), wherein the first scroll is configured to rotate about the first shaft axis relative to the housing (para. 19); a second scroll (6) comprising a second involute disposed in the housing (apparent in Fig. 1); a second scroll shaft (49) comprising a second shaft axis (A), wherein the second scroll shaft is rotationally fixed to the second scroll (Fig. 1), wherein the second scroll is configured to rotate about the second shaft axis relative to the housing (para. 19), wherein the first involute and the second involute are enmeshed with one another (Fig. 1), wherein the first shaft axis is parallel to and offset from the second shaft axis (Fig. 1); a first integrated rotary union (9) arranged between the housing and the first scroll shaft (Fig. 2), wherein the first integrated rotary union is configured to transmit a first coolant (“cooling air flow”) through a first sealed fluid flow path (34) running from an inflow channel (31) of the housing to a shaft inflow channel (i.e. left/intake end of shaft channel 21) of the first scroll shaft, through a scroll coolant channel (i.e. cooling channels formed by scroll fins 18) of the first scroll, through a shaft outflow channel (i.e. right/discharge end of shaft channel 21) of the first scroll shaft, and to a first outflow channel of the housing (labeled by the examiner in Fig. 1 immediately above, for clarity) (the Examiner notes that the claim language does not require any particular order/sequence as it relates to the various claimed channels; other than requiring the inflow channel of the housing to be the beginning portion of the flow path, the other portions can be arranged in any order); and a second integrated rotary union (33) arranged between the housing and the second scroll shaft (Fig. 1), wherein the second integrated rotary union is configured to transmit a second coolant (i.e. additional cooling air) through a second sealed fluid flow path running from a second inflow channel of the housing to a shaft inflow channel of the second scroll shaft, through a scroll coolant channel of the second scroll, through a shaft outflow channel of the second scroll shaft, and to a second outflow channel of the housing (see para. 25, which clearly discloses duplicating the cooling flow structure of the first integrated rotary union 9 for the opposing integrated rotary union 33).
In regards to Claim 2, see Claim 12 above and paragraph 25 of Holzapfel.
In regards to Claim 7, the first scroll (7; Fig. 2) comprises a scroll inflow hole (i.e. intake hole of channel 30; Fig. 2) and a scroll inflow channel (30) arranged between the shaft inflow channel of the first scroll shaft and the scroll coolant channel of the first scroll (apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 9, the housing comprises: a scroll housing (5) comprising a hollow interior space (Fig. 1); and a bearing housing (10) attached to the scroll housing at the first end of the co-rotating scroll device (Figs. 1-2), wherein the bearing housing closes the hollow interior space at the first end of the co-rotating scroll device (apparent in Fig. 1), and wherein the integrated rotary union is formed at an inner diameter of the bearing housing and an outer diameter of the first scroll shaft (Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 11, an aftercooler device (41) arranged at least partially in a working fluid path of the co-rotating scroll device (Fig. 2), the working fluid path comprising a fluid exit port (25) of the co-rotating scroll device.
Claim(s) 13-14 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,017,204 to Holzapfel et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
1089
1187
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claim 13, and with particular reference to Figure 1 immediately above, Holzapfel et al. (Holzapfel) discloses:
13. A co-rotating scroll device (1; Fig. 1; “driving spiral” and “driven spiral”), comprising: a housing (3); a first scroll (“driving spiral 7”; Fig. 1) positioned in the housing and having a first involute (apparent in Fig. 1); a second scroll (“driven spiral 9”; Fig. 1) positioned in the housing and having a second involute (apparent in Fig. 1); and one or more integrated rotary unions (Fig. 1, as labeled by the examiner for clarity) configured to transmit coolant (i.e. cooling air) from the housing (i.e. housing inlets 40 & 49) to the first scroll and/or the second scroll (“radial cooling ribs 47”; “radial cooling ribs 53”).
In regard to Claim 14, Holzapfel discloses integrated cooling channels (i.e. channels between ribs 47, 53) to exchange heat from the first scroll or the second scroll to the coolant.
In regard to Claim 16, Holzapfel discloses integrated aftercooler (i.e. cooling ribs 47, 53) positioned on a back side of the first scroll and/or the second scroll (Fig. 1), wherein the integrated aftercooler uses the coolant to remove heat from gas discharged by the co-rotating scroll device (the cooling ribs are designed to cool the scrolls by removing heat from the compressed gas).
In regard to Claim 17, Holzapfel discloses integrated aftercooler (i.e. cooling ribs 47, 53) attached to the housing (at least indirectly, as is apparent in Fig. 1), wherein the integrated aftercooler uses the coolant to remove heat from a discharge gas (the cooling ribs are designed to cool the scrolls by removing heat from the compressed gas).
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 2004/0037711 to Nishimura.
In regards to Claim 18, Holzapfel discloses the co-rotating scroll device of claim 13, but does not further disclose an integrated air-to-liquid pre-cooler heat exchanger configured to lower an inlet gas temperature.
Nishimura is in the art of compressors (Title, Abstract) and teaches an integrated air-to-liquid pre-cooler heat exchanger (52) configured to lower an inlet gas temperature (Fig. 7; Para. 45-46). Nishimura makes clear that a pre-cooler that uses water allows the working gas temperature to be controlled upon entering a compressor mechanism, thus enhancing efficiency. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Holzapfel’s compressor to include an integrated air-to-liquid pre-cooler heat exchanger configured to lower an inlet gas temperature as taught by Nishimura in order to minimize heat buildup within the scrolls by having a cooled gas enter the system thereby minimizing additional heating factors (as taught in Nishimura).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 2020/0408201 to Wilson et al.
In regards to Claim 19, Holzapfel discloses the co-rotating scroll device of claim 13, but does not further disclose at least one integrated motor cooling channel.
Wilson et al. (Wilson) is in the art of scroll aftercoolers (Title, Abstract) and teaches at least one integrated motor cooling channel for cooling a drive motor of a scroll compressor using a pumped coolant (Para. 0091). Wilson makes clear that such a motor cooling channel ensures the motor temperature remains low, thereby enhancing durability and reliability. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Holzapfel’s scroll compressor to include a drive motor and an associated motor cooling channel as taught by Wilson in order to prevent degradation of the motor due to excessive heat buildup and thereby extend the life of the system.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of CN 213870268 to Hangzhou (attached herein with translation).
In regards to Claim 20, Holzapfel discloses the co-rotating scroll device of claim 13, but does not further disclose at least one integrated motor controller cooling channel.
Hangzhou is in the art of thermal management of compressors (Title, Abstract) and teaches a compressor controller 18 and an associated integrated motor controller cooling channel (“cooling jacket 16”, Fig. 2; “During the operation of the compressor, the motor part generates heat, and the controller of the compressor also generates heat. The refrigerant/refrigerant cools the motor part and the controller."). Compressor controllers are vastly well known in the art of scroll compressors for regulating operations thereof, and such controllers are well known heat generation components. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Holzapfel to include a compressor controller and associated motor controller cooling channel, as taught by Hangzhou, in order to have provided regulated operation of the scroll compressor while preventing heat buildup in the controller thereby degrading the performance of the controller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 & 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: the best available prior art fails to disclose the co-rotating scroll device of claim 1, further comprising: a first shaft seal arranged on a first side of the inflow channel of the housing; a second shaft seal arranged on a second side of the inflow channel of the housing, wherein the first shaft seal is offset a first axial distance from the second shaft seal defining a first sealed space between the first shaft seal and the second shaft seal; and a third shaft seal arranged on a first side of the outflow channel of the housing, wherein the third shaft seal is offset a second axial distance from the first shaft seal defining a second sealed space between the third shaft seal and the first shaft seal, and wherein a portion of the first shaft seal, the second shaft seal, and the third shaft seal simultaneously contacts an outer diameter of the first scroll shaft and an inner diameter of the housing.
Additionally, the best available prior art fails to disclose the co-rotating scroll device of claim 1, wherein the inflow channel of the housing is arranged orthogonal to the shaft inflow channel of the first scroll shaft, and wherein the outflow channel of the housing is arranged orthogonal to the shaft outflow channel of the first scroll shaft.
Additionally, the best available prior art fails to disclose the co-rotating scroll device of claim 1, further comprising: a first bearing arranged inside the housing; and a second bearing arranged inside the housing, wherein the first bearing is offset from the second bearing by a first axial distance, wherein the inflow channel of the housing and the outflow channel of the housing are arranged in a space between the first bearing and the second bearing, and wherein the first bearing and the second bearing rotationally support the first scroll shaft about the first shaft axis.
Finally, the best available prior art fails to disclose the co-rotating scroll device of claim 1, wherein the first scroll comprises a scroll outflow channel and a scroll outflow hole arranged between the scroll coolant channel of the first scroll the shaft outflow channel of the first scroll shaft.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights