DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 March 2026 has been entered, claims filed on 16 December 2025 have been entered.
Claims 1-15, 18, 20-24 are pending. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 10-14, and 21 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction. Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 15, 18, 20, 22-24 are examined.
The amendments have overcome the previous claim objections and 112 rejections.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant recites new limitation in claims 1, 20 and 24, “the system is configured to operate without bearings holding the intermediate coupling.” The support for the limitation and word “hold” comes from applicant’s spec (par 0075-0077). Applicant’s spec, par 0075, indicates that when the system “does not have a flexible coupling device between the rotor shaft and the transmission shaft” that it enables “the bearings which hold the coupling device to be removed.” This indicates that the claimed configuration is met when the mechanical system does not have said flexible coupling.
Examiner notes that applicant refers to US 2004/0179961 as Pugnet, while the last office action referred to the prior art as Laboube. Both Laboube and Pugnet are named inventors and either name could reasonably be used as a citation shorthand for US 2004/0179961. References to Laboube and Pugnet in this action, applicant’s remarks, and the previous office action will be interpreted as references to US 2004/0179961 as appropriate. This office action will continue to refer to the reference as Laboube to remain consistent.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
NOT INVOKED DESPITE PRESENCE
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “compaction element” in claim 1, 20, 21 and 24 as claims 1, 20, 21 and 24 describes fixing flanges as a component of the compaction element, which gives structure to the functionally claimed element.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 24, 4, 7-8, 15, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laboube aka Pugnet (US 2004/0179961) in view of Ahrens (US 6,441,532) in view of Timmermann (DE 102013208163 citations to machine translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Laboube fig 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Ahrens fig 1
Regarding claim 1, Laboube discloses a mechanical system (fig 1, par 0002) for a rotating electric machine (motor 12 and compressor 14) comprising at least one rotor (12) … a second coupling (fig 1, the face of coupling 22 which is nearer rotor)… and a transmissions shaft (18) configured to transmit mechanical power to a mechanical device (compressor blades 16), with one end of the transmission shaft comprising a first coupling (fig 1 depicts the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer the compressor stage) connected to the second coupling (flange of 22 nearer the compressor stage connects to the face of coupling 22 which is nearer the rotor) such that the transmission shaft is connected directly to the … rotor without a flexible coupling device (22 is a rigid coupling and not a flexible coupling, par 0002) and without any intermediate elastomeric or torsionally compliant element (fig 1 depicts no additional elastomeric or torsionally compliant element)… and wherein the second coupling comprises a coupling flange (fig 1 depicts a flange of coupling 22 on the face which is nearer the rotor) directly connected to a first coupling flange (the other coupling flange of 22) of the transmission shaft to form an intermediate coupling (22) that is structurally rigid, and wherein the system is configured to operate without bearings holding the intermediate coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005, thereby meeting applicant’s configuration requirements in Applicant’s spec par 0075; furthermore, it is clear that this prior art embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009).
Laboube does not disclose that the rotor has a non-through shaft and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block enclosed between a first compaction element and a second compaction element, the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft, the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange in contact with the cylindrical magnetic block, … the second coupling at a free end of the first compaction element,… and wherein the fixing flange comprises opening configured to receive tie rods distributed uniformly over a diameter of the magnetic block, the tie rods being configured to keep magnetic sheets of the cylindrical magnetic block compacted, and wherein the second coupling is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted … wherein the transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange.
Ahrens teaches a rotor (rotor c 2 ln 52) has a non-through shaft (shaft stubs 6, c 3 ln 33-35) and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block (the rotor comprises solid disks 1 and short-circuiting disks 4, c 3 ln 33-35; the plain meaning of a disk is a flat circular object; it is reasonable to infer that the stacking of several disks together to make the rotor would make the rotor a cylindrical shape) enclosed between a first compaction element (fig 1, a first of two stubs 6, with a respective short-circuiting disk 4) and a second compaction element (a second of two stubs 6 with a respective short-circuiting disk 4), the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft (shaft stubs 6 are on the axis of rotation and allow the rotor to rotate on their shared concentric axis, c 2 ln 22, c 3 ln 13), the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange (fig 1, flange part of shaft stub with the end face against short-circuiting disk 4, c 3 ln 35) in contact with the cylindrical magnetic block (shaft stub 6 is pressed on the end face of disk 4, c 3 ln 35), … and wherein the fixing flange comprises openings (tie rods 2 pass through disks 4, c 3 ln 37, inherently the tie rods 2 which pass through short-circuit disks 4 inherently must pass through openings in short-circuit disks 4) configured to receive tie rods (tie rods 2) distributed … over a diameter of the magnetic block (tie rods 2 are arranged circumferentially, c 2 ln 66-67, c 3 ln 30-32), the tie rods being configured to keep magnetic sheets of the cylindrical magnetic block compacted (tie rods 2 press solid disks against one another, c 2 ln 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the electric machine rotor of Ahrens for the electric rotor of Laboube for the predictable result of providing a cost-effective rotor for a high speed electrical machine (See MPEP 2143).
It is further obvious, that when making the substitution of Ahrens’ electric rotor in for Laboube’s electric rotor of the motor, to connect Ahrens rotor to the Laboube’s transmission shaft using Laboube’s rigid coupling 22. When modifying Ahrens’ electric rotor to use with Laboube’s rigid coupling 22, the flange of 22 which is closer to Laboube’s motor rotor would be removed from Laboube’s motor rotor shaft and that flange would be added to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6.
As a result of the combination Laboube in view of Ahrens meets the limitation … the second coupling (Laboube’s flange of 22 attached to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6) at a free end of the first compaction element (Ahrens shaft stub 6 free end), and wherein the second coupling (Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22 on shaft stub 6) is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted (Ahrens tie rods 2 would not be connected to Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22).
Laboube in view of Ahrens is silent on the tie rod being uniformly distributed.
The tie rods distributed uniformly over the magnetic block an obvious rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)). A rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of the bolts would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In this case, Ahrens uses tie rods to compact rotor elements. Any arrangement of the tie rods of the rotor that would allow compression of the rotor would be sufficient to accomplished the intended purpose of the tie rods. Applicant has not identified any particular problem solved or unexpected result of the uniform distribution of tie rods over what is suggested by the prior art. Therefore, the claimed uniform distribution of tie rods is obvious as a rearrangement of parts.
PNG
media_image3.png
588
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Timmermann fig 5
Timmermann teaches a transmission shaft (5, abstract) further comprises a threaded central pin (fig 5, stub 25, page 5) being held within a central threaded hole (40 is threaded and fixes the rod 25 in place, pg 5, bottom half) such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange (torque is transferred through the pinion 25, pg 2, 4-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft stub to compaction element of the rotor of Laboube in view of Ahrens with the pinion and threaded connection of Timmerman in order to ease the assembly and torque transfer (Timmerman, pg 5) which allows the pinon and adapter plate to be made of different materials which allows further optimization and reduction of costs (Timmerman, pg 4).
Regarding claim 24, Laboube discloses a mechanical system (fig 1, par 0002) for a rotating electric machine (motor 12 and compressor 14) the mechanical system comprising at least one rotor (12) …
a second coupling (fig 2, the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer rotor)… and
a transmission shaft (18) configured to transmit mechanical power to a mechanical device (compressor blades 16), with one end of the transmission shaft comprising a first coupling (the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer the compressor stage) connected to the second coupling (22 is a rigid coupling, par 0002) so that the transmission shaft (18) is connected directly to the second coupling of the rotor (par 0002) without a flexible coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005; it is clear that this embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009),
…
wherein the first coupling compresses a first coupling flange integral with the transmission shaft (Laboube fig 1 depicts the first flange of rigid coupling 22 closer to compressor rotor and shaft 18), the first coupling flange being configured to be, when secured, secured to the second coupling flange (Laboube, flanges are connected in rigid coupling 22 in order to transfer rotational energy from the motor to the compressor, par 0002)… and wherein the second coupling flange and the first coupling flange are configured to be, when secured, fixed to each other to together form an intermediate coupling (Laboube, the flanges form rigid coupling 22, par 0002), wherein the mechanical system is configured to operate without bearings that hold the intermediate coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005, thereby meeting applicant’s configuration requirements in Applicant’s spec par 0075; furthermore, it is clear that this prior art embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009).
Laboube does not disclose that the rotor has a non-through shaft and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block enclosed between a first compaction element and a second compaction element, the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft, the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange in contact with the cylindrical magnetic block, … the second coupling at a free end of the first compaction element,… and wherein the fixing flange comprises opening configured to receive tie rods distributed uniformly over a diameter of the magnetic block, the tie rods being configured to keep magnetic sheets of the cylindrical magnetic block compacted, and wherein the second coupling is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted,
wherein the second coupling flange integral with the first compaction element.
… wherein the transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange.
Ahrens teaches a rotor (rotor c 2 ln 52) has a non-through shaft (shaft stubs 6, c 3 ln 33-35) and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block (the rotor comprises solid disks 1 and short-circuiting disks 4, c 3 ln 33-35; the plain meaning of a disk is a flat circular object; it is reasonable to infer that the stacking of several disks together to make the rotor would make the rotor a cylindrical shape) enclosed between a first compaction element (fig 1, a first of two stubs 6, with a respective short-circuiting disk 4) and a second compaction element (a second of two stubs 6 with a respective short-circuiting disk 4), the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft (shaft stubs 6 are on the axis of rotation and allow the rotor to rotate on their shared concentric axis, c 2 ln 22, c 3 ln 13), the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange (fig 1, flange part of shaft stub with the end face against short-circuiting disk 4, c 3 ln 35) in contact with the cylindrical magnetic block (shaft stub 6 is pressed on the end face of disk 4, c 3 ln 35), … and wherein the fixing flange comprises openings (tie rods 2 pass through disks 4, c 3 ln 37, inherently the tie rods 2 which pass through short-circuit disks 4 inherently must pass through openings in short-circuit disks 4) configured to receive tie rods (tie rods 2) distributed … over a diameter of the magnetic block (tie rods 2 are arranged circumferentially, c 2 ln 66-67, c 3 ln 30-32), the tie rods being configured to keep magnetic sheets of the cylindrical magnetic block compacted (tie rods 2 press solid disks against one another, c 2 ln 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the electric machine rotor of Ahrens for the electric rotor of Laboube for the predictable result of providing a cost-effective rotor for a high speed electrical machine (See MPEP 2143).
It is further obvious, that when making the substitution of Ahrens’ electric rotor in for Laboube’s electric rotor of the motor, to connect Ahrens rotor to the Laboube’s transmission shaft using Laboube’s rigid coupling 22. When modifying Ahrens’ electric rotor to use with Laboube’s rigid coupling 22, the flange of 22 which is closer to Laboube’s motor rotor would be removed from Laboube’s motor rotor shaft and that flange would be added to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6.
As a result of the combination Laboube in view of Ahrens meets the limitation … the second coupling (Laboube’s flange of 22 attached to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6) at a free end of the first compaction element (Ahrens shaft stub 6 free end), and wherein the second coupling (Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22 on shaft stub 6) is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted (Ahrens tie rods 2 would not be connected to Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22).
Laboube in view of Ahrens is silent on the tie rod being uniformly distributed.
The tie rods distributed uniformly over the magnetic block an obvious rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)). A rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of the bolts would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In this case, Ahrens uses tie rods to compact rotor elements. Any arrangement of the tie rods of the rotor that would allow compression of the rotor would be sufficient to accomplished the intended purpose of the tie rods. Applicant has not identified any particular problem solved or unexpected result of the uniform distribution of tie rods over what is suggested by the prior art. Therefore, the claimed uniform distribution of tie rods is obvious as a rearrangement of parts.
Timmermann teaches a transmission shaft (5, abstract) further comprises a threaded central pin (fig 5, stub 25, page 5) being held within a central threaded hole (40 is threaded and fixes the rod 25 in place, pg 5, bottom half) such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange (torque is transferred through the pinion 25, pg 2, 4-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft stub to compaction element of the rotor of Laboube in view of Ahrens with the pinion and threaded connection of Timmerman in order to ease the assembly and torque transfer (Timmerman, pg 5) which allows the pinon and adapter plate to be made of different materials which allows further optimization and reduction of costs (Timmerman, pg 4).
Regarding claim 4, Laboube in view of Ahrens teaches the mechanical system of claim 24, wherein the first and second compaction elements (Ahrens, shaft stubs 6) are of identical structure (Ahrens depicts shaft stubs 6 as identical in fig 1 and fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Laboube in view of Ahrens teaches the mechanical system of claim 24, configured such that a mechanical torque (Laboube, par 0002) transmits through the at least one transmission shaft (Laboube, shaft 18) and the fixing flange (Laboube, coupling 22).
Regarding claim 8, Laboube in view of Ahrens teaches the mechanical system of claim 24, further comprising a median shaft (fig 1, Ahrens shaft part of shaft stub 6, see annotated figure) connecting the fixing flange (Ahrens flange part of shaft stub 6) and the second coupling flange (Laboube in view Ahrens, flange of coupling 22 at the end of shaft stubs 6), whereby no other shaft is between the fixing flange and the second coupling flange.
Regarding claim 15, Laboube in view of Ahrens teaches a motor compressor (Laboube, compressor, par 0002) comprising a mechanical system (Laboube, multi-stage compressor, par 0002) according to claim 1, a same number (Laboube, fig 1, 1 motor and 1 electric rotor) of rotating electric machine (Laboube, fig 1 shows one motor) as rotor (Laboube fig 1 shows one rotor per motor, Laboube in view of Ahrens, Laboube’s rotor was substituted by Ahrens electric rotor) and a same number (Laboube fig 1 depicts one rotor and one shaft connecting that rotor to the compressor) of mechanical device (Laboube, multi stage compressor par 0002) as transmission shaft (Laboube compressor shaft 18), with each rotor being inserted into a different electric machine (Laboube one rotor per electric motor) and each transmission shaft (Laboube shaft 18) being connected to a different mechanical device (Laboube fig 1 shows the shaft 18 connecting to one compressor rotor) comprising a compression section (Laboube compressor rotor), wherein each transmission shaft is connected directly to the corresponding rotor without a flexible coupling and wherein the motor compressor operates without bearings holding the coupling between the transmission shaft and rotor (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005, thereby meeting applicant’s configuration requirements in Applicant’s spec par 0075; furthermore, it is clear that this prior art embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009).
Regarding claim 20, Laboube discloses an apparatus (fig 1) for a rotating electric machine (motor 12 and compressor 14, par 0002) the apparatus comprising: at least one rotor (motor rotor 12) … a second coupling (fig 1, the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer rotor 12)… the second coupling being configured to be secured to and put in direct contact, without a flexible coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005; it is clear that this embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009) with a first coupling (the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer the compressor) integral with a transmissions shaft (shaft 18; fig 1 depicts the flange of coupling 22 and shaft 18 toward the compressor connect as a single piece); wherein the second coupling and the first coupling are directly fixed together to form a rigid intermediate coupling (22), and the apparatus is configured to operate without bearings holding the intermediate coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005, thereby meeting applicant’s configuration requirements in Applicant’s spec par 0075; furthermore, it is clear that this prior art embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009).
Laboube does not disclose a first compaction element, a second compaction element, at least one rotor with a non-through shaft, the at least one rotor comprising a cylindrical magnetic block wherein the cylindrical magnetic block is configured to be enclosed between first and second compaction elements together forming a rotor shaft, and the first compaction element comprising fixed and free ends, the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange at the fixed end, the fixing flange being configured to be put into fixed contact with the cylindrical magnetic block, wherein the fixing flange is configured to be directly secured to tie rods configured to compact the rotor, and wherein the second coupling has no contact with the tie rods. … wherein the transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange.
Ahrens teaches a first compaction element (fig 1, a first of two stubs 6, See annotated drawing), a second compaction element (fig 1, a second of two stubs 6), at least one rotor (rotor c 2 ln 52) has a non-through shaft (shaft stubs 6, c 3 ln 33-35) and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block (the rotor comprises solid disks 1 and short-circuiting disks 4, c 3 ln 33-35; the plain meaning of a disk is a flat circular object; it is reasonable to infer that the stacking of several disks together to make the rotor would make the rotor a cylindrical shape) enclosed between the first compaction element (fig 1, a first of two stubs 6, with a respective short-circuiting disk 4) and the second compaction element (a second of two stubs 6 with a respective short-circuiting disk 4), the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft (shaft stubs 6 are on the axis of rotation and allow the rotor to rotate on their shared concentric axis, c 2 ln 22, c 3 ln 13), the first compaction element comprising fixed (fig 1, fixed end is fixed by tie rods 2 to the rotor disks 4) and free ends (fig 1, free end of shaft stub is axially outward from the flange), the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange at the fixed end (fig 1, flange part of shaft stub with the end face against short-circuiting disk 4, c 3 ln 35), the fixing flange being configured to be put into fixed contact with the cylindrical magnetic block (shaft stub 6 is pressed on the end face of disk 4, c 3 ln 35), … and wherein the fixing flange is configured to be directly secured to tie rods configured to compact the rotor (tie rods 2 pass through disks 4, c 3 ln 37; tie rods 2 press solid disks against one another, c 2 ln 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the electric machine rotor of Ahrens for the electric rotor of Laboube for the predictable result of providing a cost-effective rotor for a high speed electrical machine (See MPEP 2143).
It is further obvious, that when making the substitution of Ahrens electric rotor in for Laboube’s electric rotor of the motor, to connect Ahrens rotor to the Laboube’s transmission shaft using Laboube’s flanged coupling 22. When modifying Ahrens electric rotor to use with Laboube’s flanged coupling 22, the flange of 22 which is closer to Laboube’s rotor 12 would be removed from Laboube’s rotor 12 shaft and that flange would be added to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6.
As a result of the combination Laboube in view of Ahrens meets the limitation … the second coupling (Laboube’s flange of 22 attached to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6) at a free end of the first compaction element (Ahrens shaft stub 6 free end), and wherein the second coupling (Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22 on shaft stub 6) is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted (Ahrens tie rods 2 would not be connected to Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22).
Furthermore, as the second coupling is attached to the free end of shaft stub 6, the tie rods which go through the fixing flange of the shaft stub would not be in contact with the second coupling, because the length of the shaft stub 6 is between those two separate flanges. Therefore, the combination meets the limitation, wherein the second coupling has no contact with the tie rods.
Timmermann teaches a transmission shaft (5, abstract) further comprises a threaded central pin (fig 5, stub 25, page 5) being held within a central threaded hole (40 is threaded and fixes the rod 25 in place, pg 5, bottom half) such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange (torque is transferred through the pinion 25, pg 2, 4-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft stub to compaction element of the rotor of Laboube in view of Ahrens with the pinion and threaded connection of Timmerman in order to ease the assembly and torque transfer (Timmerman, pg 5) which allows the pinon and adapter plate to be made of different materials which allows further optimization and reduction of costs (Timmerman, pg 4).
Regarding claim 22, Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann makes obvious the motor compressor comprising the mechanical system of claim 1, wherein the mechanical system comprises a coupling device (Laboube, coupling 22) comprising the second coupling (Laboube in view of Ahrens, the flange of coupling 22 attached to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6) and the first coupling (Laboube, the flange of coupling 22 that is closer to the compressor rotor), and comprises one rotor (Laboube in view of Ahrens, the rotor of Ahrens which substituted the motor rotor of Laboube) and two bearings (Laboube fig 2 shows bearings 24, 26 on either side of rotor 12, par 0002) located respectively at a free end of the one rotor (Laboube, fig 1, bearing 24) and at the transmission shaft (Laboube, fig 1, bearing 26 on shaft 18).
Laboube is silent as to the motor compressor does not comprise bearings holding the coupling device.
As per applicant’s disclosure, the motor compressor without bearings configured to support the intermediate coupling is a direct result of removing a flexible coupling from the shaft (See applicant’s par 0075-0077). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular bearings excluded by the claim language, are the bearings that are required in the case that a shaft includes a flexible coupling.
In contrast to Laboube’s fig 1 embodiment; Laboube discloses in a second embodiment in fig 2, a bearing supporting a flexible coupling, where the flexible coupling is in place of the rigid coupling 22 in fig 1 (fig 2, a bearing 42, between the flexible coupling and the motor rotor 38). Laboube fig 1 embodiment does not include a bearing in the location of bearing 42, and has therefore eliminated a bearing that would otherwise support the flexible coupling in fig 2, therefore meeting the claim language.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not include in Laboube the bearings required to support a flexible coupling when no flexible coupling is present, as it is obvious to eliminate a structure when the function of that element is not needed (See MPEP 2144.04(A)). The rule is that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired ( In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347,CCPA 1965; Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired). In this case, the claimed lack of “bearings configured to support the intermediate coupling” is disclosed by applicant as directly related to the omission of a flexible coupling (See applicant’s par 0075-0077); since Laboube fig 1 does not disclose a flexible coupling, therefore it is obvious to omit any bearing related to support a non-existent flexible coupling. Therefore, Laboube makes obvious the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann makes obvious the mechanical system of claim 1, wherein the fixing flange is configured to drive a compressor (Laboube, compressor, par 0002).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laboube (aka Pugnet) in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann in view of Fisch (US 2002/0037772).
Regarding claim 9, Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann makes obvious the mechanical system of claim 24. Laboube in view of Ahrens is silent on wherein the second coupling flange and the first coupling flange are configured to be fixed to each other with screws.
Fisch teaches an analogous motor compressor with a coupling (fig 3, coupling 4, par 0021) with a second coupling flange (4a) and a first coupling flange (4b) are configured to be fixed to each other with screws (screws 4h, 4i, par 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flanged coupling (fig 1, coupling 22) of Laboube by incorporating the details of the screws of Fisch for the expected result of forming a flanged connection. Connecting the flanges of Laboube coupling 22 with screws of Fisch is a known method of combination in the mechanical arts and known to a person of ordinary skill. The results of the combination are predictable because the screws of Fisch and the flanges of Laboube are used in the combination in the same manner that they function in its individual reference, which is to couple two shafts together for rotation.
Regarding claim 18, Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann makes obvious the mechanical system of claim 24. Laboube in view of Ahrens is silent on wherein the second coupling flange and the first coupling flange are configured to be fixed to each other with screws.
Fisch teaches an analogous motor compressor with a coupling (fig 3, coupling 4, par 0021) with a second coupling flange (4a) and a first coupling flange (4b) are configured to be fixed to each other with screws (screws 4h, 4i, par 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flanged coupling (fig 1, coupling 22) of Laboube by incorporating the details of the screws of Fisch for the expected result of forming a flanged connection. Connecting the flanges of Laboube coupling 22 with screws of Fisch is a known method of combination in the mechanical arts and known to a person of ordinary skill. The results of the combination are predictable because the screws of Fisch and the flanges of Laboube are used in the combination in the same manner that they function in its individual reference, which is to couple two shafts together for rotation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 20, and 24 (Remarks 16 December 2025) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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 on (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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights