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 Objections
Claims 5 and 10-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 5 line 7 “Vcc cc” should be “Vcc”; similar changes should be made of claims 10-14. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 6 and 15-20 are 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.
With regards to claim 2, the claim sets forth that the maximum number of rotations of the drive shaft is 120 rps or more. This is an unbound range and the applicant has not should possession of the outer range of such speeds, such as 1000rps.
With regards to claims 6 and 15-20, line 4 of these claims set for an unbound range of (m3 x r3 + m4 x r4)/2 > 600. The applicant has not shown possession of such value as (m3 x r3 + m4 x r4)/2 = 10,000.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshihiro (JP2008178233(A), cited by applicant) .
With regards to claim 1, Yoshihiro et al disclose a rotary compressor comprising: a compression mechanism (2, 6, 7) configured to suck (via 11) and compress a fluid; a drive shaft (4) configured to drive the compression mechanism; a motor (30,40) having a rotor (130 in the 2-cylinder embodiment of Fig. 3B) coupled to the drive shaft; and a balancer (131a, 131b) provided on the rotor, the compression mechanism having a first cylinder and a second cylinder (Fig. 3B shows two eccentric portions 105A, 105B which would each have a corresponding cylinder mounted to it as is cylinder 5 mounted in Fig. 1) sequentially arranged (see Fig. 3B) next to each other from a side closer to the rotor in an axial direction along an axis of the drive shaft, a first eccentric portion (105B) housed in the first cylinder, and a second eccentric portion (105A) housed in the second cylinder, the balancer having a first balance weight (131b) disposed at one end portion of the rotor closer to the compression mechanism in the axial direction, and a second balance weight (131A) disposed at an other end portion of the rotor (130) in the axial direction, the first eccentric portion (105B) and the first balance weight (131b) being eccentric to the axis of the drive shaft to one side (the right side of Fig. 3B), and the second eccentric portion (105A) and the second balance weight (131a) being eccentric to the axis of the drive shaft to an other side (the left side of Fig. 3B), along with rotation of the drive shaft, the first eccentric portion eccentrically rotating in the first cylinder, and the second eccentric portion eccentrically rotating in the second cylinder, and ml x r1 > m2 x r2 (as shown in Fig. 3A and described in paragraph [0044] the radiuses r1 and r2 are approximately equal; and as described at [0029] &[0030], in the first embodiment in order to achieve dynamic balancing the lower rM value is greater than the upper rM value must be the largest) where a mass of the first balance weight is ml, an eccentric distance of a center of gravity of the first balance weight from the axis of the drive shaft is rl, a mass of the second balance weight is m2, and an eccentric distance of a center of gravity of the second balance weight from the axis of the drive shaft is r2. Horishima et al do not specifically discuss the second value of rM for the lower weight (131b) of the rotor 130 in the two cylinder embodiment. Thus the rM value of the lower weight would either have a value which is larger such as taught by the first embodiment or it would have alternatively been obvious, at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application, to determine that ml x r1 should be greater than m2 x r2 based upon the particular dimensions of the motor, the compression cylinder lengths and their spacings, in order to satisfy the dynamic balance equation as described in [0029]. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horishima et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koichi et al (JP2013-204564, cited by the applicant).
As set forth above Horishima et al disclose the invention as set forth in claim 1 including that the rotary compressor is dynamically balanced (see paragraph [0029] & [0030]). However, Horishima et al do not disclose that the compressor has a maximum number of rotations of the drive shaft is 120 rps or more.
Koichi et al disclose a similarly weight balanced rotary compressor having a maximum speed above 10,000 rpm (i.e., 166.67 rps).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the Horishima et al compressor at higher speeds as taught by Koichi et al since it is dynamically balanced and would be able to achieve increased air conditioning loads when operated in a refrigeration system (see [0003] of Koichi et al.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horishima et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masaya et al (JPH11230073, cited by the applicant).
As set forth above Horishima et al disclose the invention as set forth in claim 1 including that the rotary compressor is dynamically balanced (see paragraph [0029] & [0030]). However, Horishima et al do not disclose that the compressor is part of a refrigerant circuit configured to perform a refrigeration cycle.
Masaya et al disclose a similarly weight balanced rotary compressor that is part of a refrigerant circuit configured to perform a refrigeration cycle, see Fig. 1.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the balanced compressor of Horishima et al for the balanced compressor of Fig. 1 in Masaya et al since each of the compressors are recognized as equivalence for their use in the refrigeration art and selection of either of these known equivalents to compress refrigerant would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 8-14 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 claims 3 and 8, the prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious rotary compressor of claim 1 wherein 1.2 - 0.002 x Nmax < (m2 x r2+m4x r4)/(mlxrl+ m3 x r3)< 0.98 , where a mass of the first eccentric portion is m3,an eccentric distance of a center of gravity of the first eccentric portion from the axis of the drive shaft is r3,a mass of the second eccentric portion is m4, an eccentric distance of a center of gravity of the second eccentric portion from the axis of the drive shaft is r4, anda maximum number of rotations of the drive shaft is Nmax rps; With regards to claims 4 and 9, the prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious rotary compressor of claim 1 wherein 0.88 S (m2 x r2 + m4 x r4)/(ml x r1 + m3 x r3); and with regards to claims 5 and 10-14, the prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious rotary compressor of claim 1 wherein Vcc/(phi)4> 3 x 10-4 , where a sum of a volume of a first compression chamber formed between an inner peripheral surface of the first cylinder and the first eccentric portion and a volume of a second compression chamber formed between an inner peripheral surface of the second cylinder and the second eccentric portion is Vcc cc, and a diameter of a main shaft portion of the drive shaft coupled to the rotor is (phi) mm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hirayama et al discloses a balanced rotary 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
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights