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 .
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 outer end, the outermost part, the innermost part, the spacing of the outermost part, the spacing of the innermost part (claim 16); “a spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in a first area, corresponding to a 90-degree range about the rotation shaft from an outermost end of the orbiting wrap facing the inlet, is set to be greater than a spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in other areas (claim 20); spacings between respective pairs of adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in a second area, corresponding to a side opposite the first area with respect to the rotation shaft, are equal to each other (claim 21); a spacing between adjacent portions of the fixed wrap facing the adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in the first area is set to be greater than a spacing between adjacent portions of the fixed wrap disposed in other areas (claim 22); spacings between respective pairs of adjacent portions of the fixed wrap facing the respective pairs of adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in the second area are equal to each other (claim 23); all spacings mentioned in claims 28-30; 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 16-30 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. Claim 16 recites the limitation: “wherein in a first region corresponding to 90 degrees from the outer end of the orbiting wrap to the center of the rotation shaft, the spacing of the outermost part of the orbiting wrap and the spacing of the innermost part of the orbiting wrap are provided to be larger than the other spacings.”
Firstly, the specification makes no mention of “a first region corresponding to 90 degrees from the outer end of the orbiting wrap to the center of the rotation shaft.” It is noted that the outer end of the orbiting wrap to the center of the rotation shaft would define a single line and not a region as claimed herein. In contrast the specification states in paragraph [25]: “A spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in a first area, corresponding to a 90-degree range about the rotation shaft from an outermost end of the orbiting wrap facing the inlet, may be set to be greater than a spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in other areas.” As can be seen herein, this region is defined from the outer end of the orbiting wrap about the rotation shaft spanning a 90 degree range and not to the rotation shaft as claimed.
Furthermore, the specification makes no mention of the spacing of the outermost part in relation to the spacing of the innermost part and the other spacings. As stated in the quoted section above from paragraph [25], the spacing is between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap and so it is not known what is meant by a spacing at singular points such as the innermost end and the outermost end of the orbiting wrap.
Claim 20 recites the limitation: “wherein a spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in a first area, corresponding to a 90-degree range about the rotation shaft from an outermost end of the orbiting wrap facing the inlet, is set to be greater than a spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in other areas.” While the specification basically repeats this limitation without further explanation, there is no clear indication of where exactly the adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap are located and how the spacing between these adjacent portions is measured. Figure 10 for instance shows different spacings (A, B, C, D and a, b, c) but these appear to be spacings between the orbiting wrap and the fixed wrap in different regions (a1 and a2). As mentioned in paragraph [162], these spacings are defined between the first envelope curve S1 and the second envelope curve S2. As further mentioned in paragraph [107] the envelope curves S1 and S2 correspond to the shapes of the orbiting wrap and the fixed wrap to form compression chambers. Hence there is insufficient written description regarding how the adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap are defined and how the spacing between these adjacent portions is measured.
It is further noted that the orbiting wrap forms a continuous spiral and so adjacent portions can refer to radially extending inner and outer parts of the orbiting wrap or alternately to different adjacent points along the curve forming the orbiting wrap. Without a fixed frame of reference to define these adjacent portions, it is not known how these limitations should be interpreted.
Claim 21 recites: “wherein spacings between respective pairs of adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in a second area, corresponding to a side opposite the first area with respect to the rotation shaft, are equal to each other.”
Similar language is repeated in paragraph [26] of the specification. However, as explained above “adjacent portions” is not properly defined. It is also noted that all the Figures only show spacings between the fixed wrap and the orbiting wrap and so there is no clear representation of spacing between adjacent portions in a single wrap.
Claim 22 also mentions “adjacent portions of the fixed wrap” wherein as explained above sufficient written description has not been provided to properly interpret this term.
Claim 23 mentions: “spacings between respective pairs of adjacent portions of the fixed wrap.” There is no clear description regarding what these pairs are and how these adjacent portions are defined. There is also no clear description regarding how these spacings are measured.
Claims 28-30 define the spacings between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap in four distinct areas. These specification merely repeats similar verbiage in paragraphs [33]-[34] without further explaining how the adjacent portions are defined and how these spacings are measured relative to the adjacent portions.
The remaining dependent claims are dependent on one of the rejected claims above and so are also rejected for the same reasons presented above. Therefore, claims 16-30 lack sufficient written description.
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 16-30 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 16 recites the limitation: “wherein in a first region corresponding to 90 degrees from the outer end of the orbiting wrap to the center of the rotation shaft, the spacing of the outermost part of the orbiting wrap and the spacing of the innermost part of the orbiting wrap are provided to be larger than the other spacings.”
Firstly, the specification makes no mention of “a first region corresponding to 90 degrees from the outer end of the orbiting wrap to the center of the rotation shaft.” It is noted that the outer end of the orbiting wrap to the center of the rotation shaft would define a single line and not a region as claimed herein. In contrast the specification states in paragraph [25]: “A spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in a first area, corresponding to a 90-degree range about the rotation shaft from an outermost end of the orbiting wrap facing the inlet, may be set to be greater than a spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in other areas.” As can be seen herein, this region is defined from the outer end of the orbiting wrap about the rotation shaft spanning a 90 degree range and not to the rotation shaft as claimed. Hence, it is unclear how a single line can define a region.
Furthermore, the specification makes no mention of the spacing of the outermost part in relation to the spacing of the innermost part and the other spacings. As stated in the quoted section above from paragraph [25], the spacing is between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap and so it is unclear what is meant by a spacing at singular points such as the innermost end and the outermost end of the orbiting wrap.
Additionally, in claim 16, the following underlined limitations lack antecedent basis: wherein in a first region corresponding to 90 degrees from the outer end of the orbiting wrap to the center of the rotation shaft, the spacing of the outermost part of the orbiting wrap and the spacing of the innermost part of the orbiting wrap are provided to be larger than the other spacings. With regards to the underlined portions above, it is unclear how these phrases should be interpreted. For instance, how exactly does a singular element such as the outermost part or the innermost part define a spacing. It is also unclear what exactly is meant by other spacing and how these spacings are measured relative to a fixed point.
It is further noted that the orbiting wrap forms a continuous spiral and so adjacent portions can refer to radially extending inner and outer parts of the orbiting wrap or alternately to different adjacent points along the curve forming the orbiting wrap. Without a fixed frame of reference to define these adjacent portions, it is unclear how these limitations should be interpreted.
Claim 20 recites the limitation: “wherein a spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in a first area, corresponding to a 90-degree range about the rotation shaft from an outermost end of the orbiting wrap facing the inlet, is set to be greater than a spacing between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in other areas.” While the specification basically repeats this limitation without further explanation, there is no clear indication of where exactly the adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap are located and how the spacing between these adjacent portions is measured. Figure 10 for instance shows different spacings (A, B, C, D and a, b, c) but these appear to be spacings between the orbiting wrap and the fixed wrap in different regions (a1 and a2). As mentioned in paragraph [162], these spacings are defined between the first envelope curve S1 and the second envelope curve S2. As further mentioned in paragraph [107] the envelope curves S1 and S2 correspond to the shapes of the orbiting wrap and the fixed wrap to form compression chambers. Hence it is unclear regarding how the adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap are defined and how the spacing between these adjacent portions is measured.
With regards to claim 20 it is also unclear how a first area corresponding to a 90-degree range about the rotation shaft corresponds to the first region mentioned in parent claim 16. Are they the same region/area or are they different?
Claim 21 recites: “wherein spacings between respective pairs of adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap disposed in a second area, corresponding to a side opposite the first area with respect to the rotation shaft, are equal to each other.”
Similar language is repeated in paragraph [26] of the specification. However, as explained above “adjacent portions” is unclear. It is also noted that all the Figures only show spacings between the fixed wrap and the orbiting wrap and so there is no clear representation of spacing between adjacent portions in a single wrap.
Claim 22 also mentions “adjacent portions of the fixed wrap” wherein as explained above it is unclear how adjacent portions should be interpreted.
Claim 23 mentions: “spacings between respective pairs of adjacent portions of the fixed wrap.” There is no clear description regarding what these pairs are and how these adjacent portions are defined. There is also no clear description regarding how these spacings are measured. Hence, it is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted.
Claims 28-30 define the spacings between adjacent portions of the orbiting wrap in four distinct areas. These specification merely repeats similar verbiage in paragraphs [33]-[34] without further explaining how the adjacent portions are defined and how these spacings are measured relative to the adjacent portions. It is unclear how these limitations should be interpreted.
The remaining dependent claims are dependent on one of the rejected claims above and so are also rejected for the same reasons presented above. Therefore, claims 16-30 are unclear.
NOTE: Please note that no prior art rejections are being provided for these claims since the proper scope of these claims cannot be fully ascertained at this time. Also for now, a lack of prior art rejections for these claims should not be construed as an indication of allowable subject matter. Any attempt to overcome this rejection would most likely result in a change of scope of these claims, which would in turn require further search and/or consideration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200102957 – Scroll compressor with variable thickness wraps and variable spacing between portions of the wraps. US 20150337838 – Scroll compressor with variable spacing between wrap portions.US 5151020 – Scroll compressor with variable spacing between wrap portions divided into 90 degree regions. See appended PTO-892 for more relevant prior art related to scroll compressor and wrap structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights