DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 7 are pending in the application with claim 8 being cancelled. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections set forth in the last Non-Final Action, dated 02/23/2026.
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.
Claims 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihara et al. (JP 2006112353 – herein after Mihara; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/14/2023) in view of Yano et al. (JP 2018204521A – herein after Yano) and further in view of Umezaki et al. (JP 2016/089665 – herein after Umezaki).
In reference to claim 1, Mihara teaches (see translation and disclosed figures) a packaged compressor (¶1) comprising:
an electric motor (19; ¶36) having (in view of fig. 2) an axial direction (↔) that lies in a first direction, which is horizontal (this horizontal direction being “↔” in view of fig. 2) {axial direction of the motor is further labelled as “d1” in fig. A below};
a compressor body (8) that is driven by the electric motor and compresses a gas (see ¶28);
a housing (1; see ¶22), including a lower base plate (1E, see fig. 1/2) and a top plate (1F, see fig. 1/2) opposite the lower base plate, that houses the electric motor and the compressor body (as evident from fig. 1/2);
a cooling air inlet (29, see fig. 5) disposed through a side surface (right surface, in view of fig. 4) of the housing (1);
a cooling air outlet (41, see fig. 6) disposed through the top plate (1F) of the housing (1); and
a cooling fan (38, see fig. 4) that is disposed on a side (left side, in view of fig. 4) of the electric motor (19) opposite of the cooling air inlet (29) [see ¶85 of translation: “Further, in the embodiment, the intake duct 30 is provided with the intake fan 32 and the exhaust duct 34 is provided with the exhaust fan 38. However, the present invention is not limited to this, and a configuration may be adapted in which a cooling fan is provided in one of the intake duct and the exhaust duct, and the cooling fan is omitted from the other duct”; thus, in view of this disclosure, in an alternate configuration, fan 38 in duct 34 is viewed as a cooling fan in fig. 4 while fan 32 in duct 30 being absent] such that a projection of an axis of rotation (axis of rotation can be viewed as axis extending in a direction “↔” in view of fig. 4 or direction labeled “d2” in fig. A below) of the cooling fan (38) lies in a second direction, which is horizontal (this horizontal direction being “↔” in view of fig. 4 and is labelled “d2” in fig. A below),
a partition plate (see fig. A below) extending vertically,
wherein the cooling fan induces (see fig. 5 and ¶65-¶66) a flow of cooling air that flows in from an outside of the housing via the cooling air inlet (29), thereafter flows around the electric motor (19), and thereafter flows out to the outside of the housing via the cooling air outlet (41).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1096
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
646
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
606
1074
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited figs. 2, 4 and 6 of Mihara to show claim interpretation.
Mihara does not teach the packaged compressor comprising the partition plate “extending vertically from the lower base plate to the top plate, which partitions the cooling fan from the compressor body and the electric motor and forms a fan duct in which the cooling fan is entirely disposed, the partition plate including a circular vent having a diameter less than a diameter of the cooling fan and formed at a position between the electric motor and the cooling fan such that the cooling fan faces the electric motor through the circular vent”.
However, Yano teaches a packaged compressor, comprising (see fig. 2) a partition plate (13) extending vertically from the lower base plate (10d) to the top plate (10c), which partitions the cooling fan (40) from the compressor body (20) and the electric motor (21) and forms a fan duct (11c) in which the cooling fan (40) is entirely disposed, the partition plate (see fig. 5 and ¶65-¶66) including a circular vent (13d) having a diameter less than a diameter of the cooling fan (40).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the packaged compressor of Mihara such that the partition plate extends vertically from the base plate to the top plate, which partitions the cooling fan from the compressor body and the electric motor and forms a fan duct in which the cooling fan is entirely disposed, the partition plate including a circular vent having a diameter less than a diameter of the cooling fan as taught by Yano for noise and/or airflow management. Using the partition to define a specific fan duct or chamber ensures that the cooling air induced by the fan is drawn through a structured path, thereby preventing bypass. The partition and ducting ensure that the cooling fan draws all induced air directly through the circular vent, forcing the cooling air to pass over the intended target – the electric motor – before exiting.
Mihara, as modified, teaches the packaged compressor wherein the circular vent is “formed at a position between the electric motor and the cooling fan such that the cooling fan faces the electric motor through the circular vent” [this claimed feature would naturally flow from the proposed modification discussed above; see Mihara’s fig. 2, the cooling fan 38 (at a position such that the partition plate is between the electric motor and the cooling fan in the modified packaged compressor) faces the electric motor through the circular vent].
Mihara, as modified, does not teach the packaged compressor “wherein the second direction intersects the electric motor, wherein the cooling fan is configured such that the diameter of the cooling fan is greater than a height dimension of the electric motor, and wherein the cooling fan is disposed such that an axial-direction projection plane of the cooling fan includes a portion overlapping the electric motor, a portion positioned above the electric motor and not overlapping the electric motor, a portion positioned below the electric motor and not overlapping the electric motor, and a portion not overlapping the electric motor in a radial direction of the cooling fan extending away from the electric motor that is parallel to the axial direction of the electric motor”. However, these features are dependent on sizing of the cooling fan and/or sizing of the electric motor.
However, Umezaki teaches a packaged compressor, comprising a cooling fan (FM) with a projection of an axis of rotation (“d2”; see fig. B below) that lies in a second direction (↨ in view of fig. B below) which intersects an electric motor (M), wherein the cooling fan (FM) {please note that fig. B below shows front view (top picture) and right view (bottom picture) of the compressor}
is configured such that a diameter (labelled “d” in fig. B below) of the cooling fan (FM) is greater than a height dimension (labelled “h” in fig. B below) of the electric motor (M), and
wherein the cooling fan is disposed such that an axial-direction projection plane (plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the fan; labelled “P” in fig. B below; this plane can also be viewed as “plane corresponding to top/bottom view”) of the cooling fan includes a portion (viewed as portion labelled “p2” in fig. B below) overlapping the electric motor (M), a portion (viewed as portion labelled “p3” in fig. B below) positioned above the electric motor [this portion “p3” is considered to be “above” the motor M when bottom view of the motor is considered] and not overlapping the electric motor, a portion (labelled “p1” in fig. B below) positioned below the electric motor and not overlapping the electric motor [this portion “p1” is considered to be “below” the motor M when bottom view of the motor is considered], and a portion (labelled “p4” in fig. B below) not overlapping the electric motor in a radial direction of the cooling fan extending away from the electric motor that is parallel to the axial direction (“axial direction” being a horizontal direction “d1” in view of top picture seen in fig. B below) of the electric motor [this portion “p4” is considered to be in radial direction extending “away” the motor M when bottom view of the motor is considered].
PNG
media_image4.png
974
764
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited fig. 6(a)-(b) of Umezaki to show claim interpretation.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the packaged compressor of Mihara by modifying the cooling fan’s duct for accommodating a larger cooling fan such that the fan’s diameter is greater than a height dimension of the motor as taught by Umezaki for the well-known purpose of increasing the motor surface that would be subject to cooling for a better cooling of the motor.
Thus, Mihara, as modified, teaches the packaged compressor, wherein the cooling fan (modified Mihara’s cooling fan in view of Umezaki’s teaching) is disposed on a side of the electric motor (of Mihara) opposite the cooling air inlet such that a projection of an axis of rotation of the cooling fan lies in a second direction, which is horizontal, and intersects the electric motor (of Mihara) [in view of the proposed modification, the projection of modified fan’s axis of rotation is “on” the electric motor, thus intersecting the electric motor], wherein the cooling fan is further configured such that the diameter of the cooling fan is greater than a height dimension of the electric motor, and wherein the cooling fan is disposed such that an axial-direction projection plane of the cooling fan includes a portion overlapping the electric motor, a portion positioned above the electric motor and not overlapping the electric motor, a portion positioned below the electric motor and not overlapping the electric motor, and a portion not overlapping the electric motor in a radial direction of the cooling fan extending away from the electric motor that is parallel to the axial direction of the electric motor.
In reference to claim 2, Mihara teaches the packaged compressor, wherein the cooling air inlet (29) is arranged such that a vertical-direction projection plane (in view of fig. 5: plane into and out of page in vertical direction) of the cooling air inlet overlaps the electric motor (19).
In reference to claim 3, Mihara teaches the packaged compressor, wherein the packaged compressor includes a separator (42) that separates a liquid from the compressed gas delivered from the compressor body (see ¶61), wherein the compressor body (2) is coupled to one axial side of the electric motor (1), wherein the separator (18) is coupled to a lower side (downstream side) of the compressor body (2) {in view of disclosure in ¶24, ¶61, ¶81, following connection is present: compressor body 8/8’ > piping 5/5’ > tank 3/4/3’ > piping 7/7’ > air dryer 42}, and wherein the cooling air inlet (29) is arranged such that (in view of fig. 5) the vertical-direction projection plane of the cooling air inlet overlaps the electric motor (19).
Mihara does not teach the packaged compressor wherein “a lower edge of the cooling air inlet is positioned below a lowest point of the electric motor”.
However, Umezaki teaches a packaged compressor wherein (see fig. 5a) a lower edge of the cooling air inlet (25a) is positioned below a lowest point of the electric motor (M).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cooling air inlet in Mihara’s packaged compressor such that its lower edge is positioned below a lowest point of the electric motor as taught by Umezaki for the purpose of making the cooling air inlet larger for allowing more cooling air to enter into the packaged compressor, thus further improving the cooling of the components within the packaged compressor.
In reference to claim 4, Mihara teaches the packaged compressor, wherein the packaged compressor includes an inlet duct (30) that is arranged so as to cover the cooling air inlet (29) and guides the cooling air (see arrows A, B, C in fig. 5) from the cooling air inlet to the electric motor (see ¶37).
Claims 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihara in view of Yano and further in view of Umezaki, Sasage et al. (JP 2005-171957 – herein after Sasage; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/14/2023) and evidenced by Linnemann et al. (US 2014/0300221 – herein after Linnemann).
Mihara teaches the packaged compressor, wherein the electric motor (19) includes (see fig. 8): a rotation shaft (19B); a rotor (not labelled but present) attached to the rotation shaft; a stator (not labelled but present) arranged apart from and on an outer-circumference side of the rotor; a casing (19A) to which the stator is attached, as in claim 5.
Mihara does not teach the packaged compressor, wherein the electric motor further includes: a plurality of fins that are formed outside the casing and extend in the axial direction of the electric motor, as in claim 5.
However, Sasage teaches a packaged compressor, wherein the electric motor includes: a rotation shaft (not labelled but present, see fig. 2); a rotor (61, see fig. 2) attached to the rotation shaft; a stator (62, see fig. 2) arranged apart from and on an outer-circumference side of the rotor; a casing (63, see fig. 1/2) to which the stator is attached; and a plurality of fins (65, see fig. 1) that are formed outside the casing and extend in the axial direction (↔) of the electric motor.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the electric motor in Mihara’s packaged compressor with a plurality of fins as taught by Sasage in order to allow for better heat dissipation of the motor, as evidenced by Sasage (see ¶42, ¶54-¶55), because addition of fins to the motor case increases its surface area by exposing more surface to the cooling air.
Mihara, as modified, teaches the electric motor (see fig. C below) is configured such that it has an axial dimension L1 between a load-side end surface of a core of the rotor or a core of the stator and a load-side end of the plurality of fins, an axial dimension L2 between a non-load-side end surface of the core of the rotor or the core of the stator and a non-load-side end of the plurality of fins, and an axial dimension L3 of the core of the rotor or the core of the stator [note: “load-side”= side closer to the pump element and “non-load-side” = side farther from the pump element], as in claim 5.
PNG
media_image5.png
1106
1488
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. C: Edited fig. 8 of Mihara to show proposed modification.
Mihara, as modified, remains silent on the electric motor additionally configured “such that a sum total (L1+L2) of the axial dimension L1 and the axial dimension L2 is longer than the axial dimension L3”, as in claim 5; “such that the axial dimension L1 is longer than the axial dimension L2”, as in claim 6; “such that the axial dimension L1 is shorter than the axial dimension L2”, as in claim 7.
The above claimed relationships depend on axial length sizing of the rotor and stator components in the electric motor. As evidenced by Linnemann (see ¶25, ¶45 and figs. 2, 3 and 5), “axial length of rotor” and “axial length of stator” in the electric motor housing with fins is/are a result effective variable since their lengths determine the power size/output or power generated by the electric motor.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the “sum total (L1+L2) of the axial dimension L1 and the axial dimension L2 longer than the axial dimension L3”, and “the axial dimension L1 longer than the axial dimension L2” or “the axial dimension L1 shorter than the axial dimension L2” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, applicant places no criticality on the claimed relationship (see ¶31-¶34 of pg. pub of the instant application) [With regards to statements in ¶31-¶34 such as “Thereby, an axial dimension L of the fins 31 can be increased, and this in turn can increase the surface area of the electric motor 13 cooled by cooling air,..”, “thermal effects from the compressor body 14 to the electric motor 13 may be reduced...”; “mechanical loss of the rotation shaft 23 may be reduced,..”: please note, the phrase “can/may” indicates a possibility or probability).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed May 22, 2026 with respect to rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Mihara in view of Yano and Umezaki, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in Yano (Fig. 2), the cooling fan 40 is positioned adjacent to the compressor body 20, the vent 13d is between the fan 40 and the compressor body 20, and the electric motor 21 is positioned on the opposite side of the compressor body 20. Applicant contends that Yano’s fan faces the compressor body rather than the electric motor, and therefore the combination would not arrive at a configuration where the partition plate partitions the cooling fan from the electric motor with the circular vent formed between the electric motor and the cooling fan such that the cooling fan faces the electric motor through the circular vent.
In response, Applicant’s argument attacks the references individually. In Mihara (see figs. 2 – 6), the electric motor 19 is disposed such that the cooling fan 38 or vent/opening 34A faces the electric motor. Yano is not cited for the relative spatial layout of its motor versus compressor body; rather, Yano is cited to teach: (i) providing a vertical partition plate (13) extending from the lower base plate (10d) to the top plate (10c) that partitions the cooling fan (40) from the interior machine component to form a dedicated fan duct (11c) in which the cooling fan is entirely disposed; and (ii) providing a circular vent 13d in the vertical portion of the partition plate having a diameter less than the fan diameter to induce intake airflow into the fan duct. Applying Yano’s vertical partition plate and fan duct to enclose Mihara’s cooling fan (38) at opening (34a) naturally results in the partition plate partitioning the fan (38) from both the compressor body (8) and the electric motor (19), with the circular vent disposed between the electric motor (19) and the cooling fan (38) such that the fan faces the motor through the vent, thereby achieving the predictable result of channeling cooling air directly over the motor surface prior to entering the fan duct.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights