Application No. 15/168912
`Reply to Action dated 07/10/2018
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration of the above-identified
`
`application.
`
`Claim 1 been revised to further define a bearing extending section of the main bearing
`
`unit and to recite a clearance which is provided between the main surface that is in contact with
`
`the upper portions of the balls of the upper race and an upper end surface of the bearing
`
`extending section where the clearance provides a channel through which the second oil feeding
`
`passage is in fluid communication with the first oil feeding passage. These features are supported
`
`by, for example, paragraphs [0032], [0033], and [0048] and Figure 2 in the Specification. Claim
`
`1 has also been revised to address the clarity issue brought up by the Examiner during the
`
`Examiner Interview held on August 29, 2018. No new matter has been added.
`
`Claims 1 and 4-7 are pending, with claim 4 being withdrawn. Upon allowance of claim 1,
`
`rejoinder and allowance of dependent claim 4 is respectfully requested.
`
`Examiner Interview
`
`Applicant thanks Examiner Dominick L. Plakkoottam for the telephone interview held on
`
`August 29, 2018 with the Applicant’s representative, Alexander J. Kim (Reg. No. 68,448).
`
`During the interview, claim 1 was discussed. During the interview, Cho (US 2007/0025864) and
`
`Okaichi et al. (US 2006/0192171) were discussed. During the interview, the Examiner brought
`
`up a possible clarity issue with claim 1. Further, the Examiner recommended pursuing the
`
`structural features of the upper race, with respect to the thrust surface and the shaft, to potentially
`
`advance the prosecution of the application. The claim amendments in this paper reflect the
`
`discussions held during the interview. No further agreement was reached by the conclusion of
`
`the interview.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1 and 7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in
`
`view of Watanabe (US 2010/0047093) in further view of Okaichi et al. It is respectfully noted
`
`that the Office Action incorrectly identified this rejection as being a “35 U.S.C. 102(b)” rejection
`
`(page 3 of the Office Action).
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/168912
`Reply to Action dated 07/10/2018
`
`Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed towards a sealed compressor comprising, in part,
`
`a bearing extending section of the main bearing unit and a clearance which is provided between
`
`the main surface that is in contact with the upper portions of the balls of the upper race and an
`
`upper end surface of the bearing extending section such that the clearance provides a channel
`
`through which the second oil feeding passage is in fluid communication with the first oil feeding
`
`passage. The clearance advantageously enables the thrust balls to roll smoothly between the
`
`upper race and the lower race (see, e.g., paragraph [0048] in the Specification). Further, the
`
`channel provided by the clearance advantageously enables oil to be fed stably from the first oil
`
`feeding passage to the second oil feeding passage, thereby reducing a sliding loss generated in
`
`the balls. These features can result in a compressor which generates less noise and which has a
`
`greater efficiency (see, e.g., paragraphs [0067] and [0068] in the Specification).
`
`Cho does not teach or suggest the above features. Cho teaches that a frame 11 which
`
`includes a ring-shaped bearing insertion groove 11b formed around an upper end of the hollow
`
`portion 11a (see paragraph [0020] and Fig. 2 of Cho). Cho does not disclose or suggest a frame
`
`which includes a bearing extending section that extends vertically in an inner peripheral portion
`
`(i.e. a portion close to main shaft) of the thrust surface (e. g. surface of main bearing unit 10c in
`
`contact with lower race 32, see page 3 of the Office Action) and is configured to protrude
`
`upward from the thrust surface.
`
`Moreover, Cho teaches a branch channel 54 through which a first oil feeding passage 50
`
`feeds oil to the thrust bearing. In particular, the branch channel 54 includes a linear hole radially
`
`branched from a third oil channel 53 in a rotating shaft 20 to a location of an outer
`
`circumferential surface of the main shaft section 21 (see, e.g., paragraph [0033] and Figs. 2 and 3
`
`of Cho).
`
`In contrast, a sealed compressor according to claim 1 comprises a clearance provided
`
`between the main surface that is in contact with the upper portions of the balls of the upper race
`
`and an upper end surface of the bearing extending section, where the clearance provides a
`
`channel through which the second oil feeding passage is in fluid communication with the first oil
`
`feeding passage (see, e.g., Fig. 2 in the Specification). Accordingly, the oil is fed via the channel
`
`formed between the main surface of the upper race and the upper end surface of the bearing
`
`extending section from the main shaft to the thrust ball bearing, and not necessarily through a
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/168912
`Reply to Action dated 07/10/2018
`
`branch channel as described in Cho (which comprises a linear hole radially branched from the
`
`main shaft).
`
`Watanabe does not remedy the deficiencies of Cho discussed above. Watanabe teaches a
`
`bearing 126 in a compressor on which a thrust ball bearing 160 is provided. The thrust ball
`
`bearing 160 is provided between the rotor 154 and a bearing end surface 180 as an end surface of
`
`the bearing 126 (see, e.g., paragraph [0066] and Fig. 2 of Watanabe). Watanabe does not teach or
`
`suggest a bearing extending section. Watanabe does not teach or suggest a channel disposed
`
`between the main surface that is in contact with the upper portions of the balls of the upper race
`
`and an upper end surface of the bearing extending section through which the second oil feeding
`
`passage is in fluid communication with the first oil feeding passage. Thus, the combination of
`
`Cho and Watanabe fails to meet the features of claim 1 discussed above.
`
`Okaichi et al. does not remedy the deficiencies of Cho and Watanabe discussed above.
`
`Okaichi et al. teaches a rotary compressor without a use of thrust bearings (see, e.g., Fig. 1 of
`
`Okaichi et al.). Okaichi et al. does not teach or suggest a thrust surface defined by an inner
`
`bottom surface of a recess formed in a main surface of the main bearing unit as in claim 1.
`
`Therefore, the compressor of Okaichi et al. does not include the claimed bearing extending
`
`section which is defined as being extended vertically in an inner peripheral portion of the thrust
`
`surface. Moreover, given the absence of any thrust bearings in the rotary compressor of Okaichi
`
`et al., it is not possible for Okaichi et al. to teach or suggest a compressor comprising a channel
`
`disposed between the main surface that is in contact with the upper portions of the balls of the
`
`upper race and an upper end surface of the bearing extending section through which the second
`
`oil feeding passage is in fluid communication with the first oil feeding passage as in claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, the suggested combination of Cho, Watanabe, and Okaichi et al. fails to meet the
`
`features and advantages of claim 1. Further, there is no reason to assume that a skilled person
`
`would be led to modify the cited art to arrive at the subject-matter claimed.
`
`For at least the above reasons, claim 1 and its dependent claims are patentable over the
`
`suggested combination of Cho, Watanabe, and Okaichi et al., which Applicant does not concede
`
`are combinable. Applicant does not concede the correctness of the rejection with respect to
`
`features not discussed above. Favorable reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the
`
`rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/168912
`Reply to Action dated 07/10/2018
`
`Claim 5 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of
`
`Watanabe in further view of Okaichi et al. and as evidenced by Kobayashi et al. (JP 2010-
`
`255556). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Kobayashi et al. does not remedy the
`
`deficiencies of the suggested combination of Cho, Watanabe, and Okaichi et al. stated above in
`
`regards to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 5 is patentable over the suggested combination of Cho,
`
`Watanabe, Okaichi et al., and Kobayashi et al., which Applicant does not concede are
`
`combinable. Applicant does not concede the correctness of the rejection with respect to features
`
`not discussed above. Favorable reconsideration of the claim is respectfully requested.
`
`Claim 6 was rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho in
`
`view of Watanabe in further view of Okaichi et al. in view of Akashi et al. (US 7,832,994).
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Akashi et al. does
`
`not remedy the deficiencies of the suggested combination of Cho, Watanabe, and Okaichi et al.
`
`stated above in regards to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 6 is patentable over the suggested
`
`combination of Cho, Watanabe, Okaichi et al., and Akashi et al., which Applicant does not
`
`concede are combinable. Applicant does not concede the correctness of the rejection with respect
`
`to features not discussed above. Favorable reconsideration of the claim is respectfully requested.
`
`In view of the above, Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration in the
`
`form of a Notice of Allowance. If any questions arise regarding this communication, the
`
`Examiner is invited to contact Applicant’s representative listed below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER &
`LARSON, PC.
`45 s. 7th St, Suite 2700
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 455-3800
`
`
`Dated: October 10 2018
`By:
`/dp_mueller/
`Douglas P. Mueller
`Reg. No.: 30,300
`DPM/AJK
`
`