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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 3-4, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 21 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.
Regarding Claim 3: Line 1-3 states: “wherein the slip fit between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter is established by an interference therebetween.”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). When the claim is read in light of the SPEC (¶00176) the term “an interference” ( [Wingdings font/0xE0] which is understood to define the slip-fit) in claim 3 is used by the claim to mean “that the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter of the housing fit tightly together,” (given the ordinary meaning of the word interference – when assembling two parts) while the accepted meaning a slip-fit is “a type of clearance fit, where there is always a small gap between the two parts, like a pin and a hole.” (e.g. see the NPL document Guide to slip fit tolerances and geometry – Page 3 & top of Page 4; also see ¶0009 of Schermer US 2004/0096367 which describes a slip-fit between a pin and a hole where the hole is larger than the diameter of the pin which passes through the hole). Therefore the term interference in claim 3 is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term interference and/or does not clearly redefine what a slip-fit is. Accordingly for the purpose of examination the language “interference” in claims 3-4 will be understood to mean a gap between two parts.
Regarding Claim 8: Line 2-3 states: “wherein the interference between the first and second sides of each tab and the opposing sides of the channel is 100-200 microns.”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the interference" in Line 2. Accordingly for the purpose of examination the language in question will be read as --wherein [[the]] an interference between the first and second sides of each tab and the opposing sides of the channel is 100-200 microns.--.
Regarding Claim 12: Line 1-5 states: “wherein the housing includes an inner motor cavity having an inner diameter, the motor including a stator having an outer diameter which defines the outer diameter of the motor, wherein the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter of the inner motor cavity are configured to establish a slip fit to maintain concentricity therebetween.”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically it is unclear if the inner motor cavity recited in Line 2 of claim 12 is the same as or different from the motor cavity recited in Line 3 of claim 11? Additionally it is unclear if the inner diameter of the inner motor cavity recited in Line 2 of claim 12 is the same as or different from the inner diameter of the housing defining the motor cavity recited in Lines 2-3 of claim 11? Furthermore, it is unclear if the slip fit recited in Line 5 of claim 12 is the same as or different from the slip fit recited in Lines 5-6 of Claim 11? Accordingly, the uncertainty described above makes the scope of the claim uncertain. Since it appears that the inner motor cavity of claim 12 and the motor cavity of claim 11 are the same feature, for the purpose of examination the language in question will be read as: --wherein the has the inner diameter, the motor including a stator having an outer diameter which defines the outer diameter of the motor, wherein the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter the slip fit to maintain concentricity therebetween.--.
Regarding Claim 14: Line 1-3 states: “wherein the interference between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter is between -25 and 75 microns.”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the outer diameter of the stator" in Line 2. Thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Furthermore, the examiner notes that claim 12, does introduce both the stator and the outer diameter of the stator. Accordingly for the purpose of examination Claim 14 will be read as being dependent on Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 14: Line 1-3 states: “wherein the interference between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter is between -25 and 75 microns.”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). When the claim is read in light of the SPEC (¶00176) the term “the interference” ( [Wingdings font/0xE0] which is understood to define the slip-fit in claim 11 & 12) in claim 14 is used by the claim to mean “that the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter of the housing fit tightly together,” (given the ordinary meaning of the word interference – when assembling two parts). However the accepted meaning a slip-fit (which is defined by the interference language) is “a type of clearance fit, where there is always a small gap between the two parts, like a pin and a hole.” (e.g. see the NPL document Guide to slip fit tolerances and geometry – Page 3 & top of Page 4; also see ¶0009 of Schermer US 2004/0096367 which describes a slip-fit between a pin and a hole where the hole is larger than the diameter of the pin which passes through the hole). Therefore the term interference in claim 14 – which is used to define the slip-fit in the claims – is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term interference and/or does not clearly redefine what a slip-fit is. Additionally there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the interference" in Line 2. Accordingly for the purpose of examination the language in question will be read as--wherein [[the]] an interference between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter is between -25 and 75 microns.--. And in claim 14 the language “an interference” will be understood to mean a gap between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter.
Regarding Claim 18: Line 2-3 states: “wherein the interference between the first and second sides of each tab and the opposing sides of the channel is 100-200 microns.”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the interference" in Line 2. Thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Accordingly for the purpose of examination the language in question will be read as --wherein [[the]] an interference between the first and second sides of each tab and the opposing sides of the channel is 100-200 microns.--.
Regarding Claim 21: Line 31-34 states: “which defines the outer diameter of the motor, wherein each of the plurality of clamping mechanisms include a tab located on the outer diameter of the motor and a channel located on an inner diameter of the housing, each channel being configured to receive a respective tab, each tab has first and second sides, each channel having opposing sides,”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically if the inner diameter of the housing in Line 33 is the same as the inner diameter of the housing in Line 3-4? Thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Since it appears that the inner diameter of the housing in Line 33 and Line 3-4 appear to be directed to the same structure, for the purpose of examination the language in question will be read as: --which defines the outer diameter of the motor, wherein each of the plurality of clamping mechanisms include a tab located on the outer diameter of the motor and a channel located on [[an]] the inner diameter of the housing, each channel being configured to receive a respective tab, each tab has first and second sides, each channel having opposing sides,--.
Finally; depending claim(s) inherit deficiencies from the parent claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance.
Regarding Claim 11: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: An assembly (the assembly is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising:
a housing (16, ¶0017) having a generally cylindrical shape (as understood from Figs 1-2) and having a central axis (housing 16 inherently has a central axis, and the central axis of the housing would be similar or the same as axis L in Fig 1), an inner diameter of the housing (inner diameter = diameter of inner circumferential surface 16a, ¶0022, Fig 1) defining a motor cavity (motor cavity = space inside housing 16 which is defined by inner circumferential surface 16a in Figs 1-2; since the inner diameter of the housing inherently defines the inner circumferential surface 16a – which in turn defines the motor cavity, the prior art addresses the claim language as written);
a motor (26,27,28, Figs 1-2, ¶0017-¶0019) mounted inside the housing (i.e. fixed by fitting to the housing 16, ¶0021), the motor having an outer diameter (outer diameter = diameter defined by outer circumferential surface 29a, ¶0025, Fig 2) and being held in place relative to the housing within the motor cavity (stator core 29 of stator 28 is fixed to the housing 16 by shrink fitting (¶0001-¶0003, especially ¶0003) thus the outer diameter is held in place relative to the housing within the motor cavity as claimed) by a slip fit between the outer diameter of the motor and the inner diameter of the housing (¶0032 states that after the housing has been shrunk a gap K2 exists between the outer diameter of the stator core 29 and the inner diameter of the housing 16, also see Figs 3-5, ¶0025, ¶0039-¶0044; additionally as seen in the evidence of Schermer US 2004/0096367 – a slip-fit is when an aperture (e.g. 112 in Figs 1C-1E) which is slightly larger than the diameter of the part it receives (see ¶0009-¶00010, Figs 1C-1F & Fig 1H) receives a part so there is a slight gap between the two parts; also as seen in the evidence of Slip fit Tolerances – a slip fit is a type of clearance fit where there is always a small gap between the two parts like a pin and a hole (Page 3 ¶1) and if you had a 0.5-inch pin for a slip fit one would design the hole to be 0.0501 to 0.0502 inches to ensure the pin can always slide in (top of Page 4) – accordingly, in the prior art of Kobayashi – since a small gap K2 is present between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter of the housing after assembly (Fig 3, ¶0025, ¶0032 / Fig 4, ¶0039 / Fig 5, ¶0040-¶0046) – this gap is similar to what would be present in a slip fit – accordingly the prior art of Kobayashi teaches a slip fit; Further, the claims do not recite any particular structure beside what is claimed and made obvious by the prior art of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 that would enable the motor being held in place relative to the housing within the motor cavity by a slip fit between the outer diameter of the motor and the inner diameter of the housing. Thus, because the structure of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 makes obvious the claimed structure, it is reasonable to conclude that it will also meet the functional limitation);
a drive shaft 12 coupled to the motor (Fig 1, ¶0018); and
a plurality of clamping mechanisms (plurality of clamping mechanisms = four recesses 32 and four protrusions 42, Figs 2-5, ¶0022-¶0026) spaced about the outer diameter of the motor (i.e. protrusions 42 are spaced at intervals of 90 degrees about the outer circumferential surface 29a of the stator core of the motor) configured to constrain the motor within the housing (¶0030, also see ¶0031-¶0032), wherein each of the plurality of clamping mechanisms include a tab (tab = protrusion 42) located on the outer diameter of the motor (as seen in Figs 3/ 4/ 5 the protrusion 42 is located on the outer diameter corresponding to element 29a in the Figures) and a channel (channel = recess 32) located on the inner diameter of the housing (as seen in Figs 3/4/5 the recess 32 is located on the inner diameter corresponding to element 16a in the Figures), each channel being configured receive a respective tab (Figs 2-5), each tab has first and second sides (first and second sides = 422 Fig 3/4/5, ¶0027, ¶0029-¶0031, ¶0040), each channel having opposing sides (opposing sides = 322 Fig 3/4/5, ¶0023, ¶0029-¶0031, ¶0040), wherein each of the tabs are held in place by an interference fit (interference fit = shrink fit described in the disclosure of Kobayashi; a shrink fit is a known type of interference fit) between the first and second sides of the tab and a respective channel (¶0029-¶0031) resulting in a lateral clamping force applied to each of the first and second sides of each tab by the opposing sides of the respective channel (the shrink fit taught by Kobayashi would inherently result in a force vector being created by the shrink fit, and the portion of the force vector that acts in the circumferential direction corresponds to the claimed lateral clamping force; since the force vector would be present at both sides of the tab/protrusion 42 the lateral clamping force would be applied to both sides as claimed).
Regarding Claim 12: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: wherein the inner motor cavity has the inner diameter (as seen in Figs 1-5 the articulated inner motor cavity has the inner diameter defined by surface 16a), the motor including a stator (stator = 28,29,30, ¶0021) having an outer diameter (outer diameter of the stator = diameter defined by outer circumferential surface 29a, ¶0025) which defines the outer diameter of the motor (it does, since the outer diameter of the stator and the outer diameter of the motor are both the diameter defined by outer circumferential surface 29a), wherein the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter are configured to establish the slip fit (as explained above the spacing K2 between the otuer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter of the housing establish the slip fit) to maintain concentricity therebetween (it is noted that, the claims do not recite any particular structure beside what is claimed and anticipated by the prior art of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance that would enable the slip fit to maintain concentricity (between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter). Thus, because the structure of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance anticipated the claimed structure, it is reasonable to conclude that it will also meet the functional limitation).
Regarding Claim 19: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: wherein each tab 42 has a top surface (421, ¶0026, Figs 3/4/5) and each channel 32 has an outer surface (321, ¶0026, Figs 3/4/5), the top surface of each tab and the outer surface of a respective channel having a radial clearance (K1, ¶0026, Figs 3/4/5).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance in view of Kowada US 2020/0003199.
Regarding Claim 1: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: An electric compressor (the electric compressor is defined by the sum of its parts) configured to compress a refrigerant (¶0017), comprising:
a housing (16, ¶0017) defining an intake volume (intake volume = small cylindrical volume in housing 16 at the right side of Fig 1 where the refrigerant enters) and a discharge volume (21, ¶0017), the housing having a generally cylindrical shape (as understood form Figs 1-2) and having a central axis (housing 16 inherently has a central axis, and the central axis of the housing would be similar or the same as axis L in Fig 1), an inner diameter of the housing (inner diameter = diameter of inner circumferential surface 16a, ¶0022, Fig 1) defining a motor cavity (motor cavity = space inside housing 16 which is defined by inner circumferential surface 16a in Figs 1-2; since the inner diameter of the housing inherently defines the inner circumferential surface 16a – which in turn defines the motor cavity, the prior art addresses the claim language as written);
a refrigerant inlet port (= opening to the small cylindrical volume that is connected to the refrigerant circuit) coupled to the housing (Fig 1) and configured to introduce the refrigerant to the intake volume (as understood from Fig 1, the refrigerant flows through the opening/inlet port into the inlet volume and then into the motor cavity in Fig 1);
a refrigerant outlet port (= opening that is connected to the refrigerant circuit on the left side of Fig 1and which communicates with chamber 21) coupled to the housing (Fig 1) and configured to allow compressed refrigerant to exit the electric compressor from the discharge volume (¶0018, Fig 1);
a motor (26,27,28, Figs 1-2, ¶0017-¶0019) mounted inside the housing (i.e. fixed by fitting to the housing 16, ¶0021), the motor having an outer diameter (outer diameter = diameter defined by outer circumferential surface 29a, ¶0025, Fig 2) and being held in place relative to the housing within the motor cavity (stator core 29 of stator 28 is fixed to the housing 16 by shrink fitting (¶0001-¶0003, especially ¶0003) thus the outer diameter is held in place relative to the housing within the motor cavity as claimed) by a slip fit between the outer diameter of the motor and the inner diameter of the housing (¶0032 states that after the housing has been shrunk a gap K2 exists between the outer diameter of the stator core 29 and the inner diameter of the housing 16, also see Figs 3-5, ¶0025, ¶0039-¶0044; additionally as seen in the evidence of Schermer US 2004/0096367 – a slip-fit is when an aperture (e.g. 112 in Figs 1C-1E) which is slightly larger than the diameter of the part it receives (see ¶0009-¶00010, Figs 1C-1F & Fig 1H) receives a part so there is a slight gap between the two parts; also as seen in the evidence of Slip fit Tolerances – a slip fit is a type of clearance fit where there is always a small gap between the two parts like a pin and a hole (Page 3 ¶1) and if you had a 0.5-inch pin for a slip fit one would design the hole to be 0.0501 to 0.0502 inches to ensure the pin can always slide in (top of Page 4) – accordingly, in the prior art of Kobayashi – since a small gap K2 is present between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter of the housing after assembly (Fig 3, ¶0025, ¶0032 / Fig 4, ¶0039 / Fig 5, ¶0040-¶0046) – this gap is similar to what would be present in a slip fit – accordingly the prior art of Kobayashi teaches a slip fit; Further, the claims do not recite any particular structure beside what is claimed and made obvious by the prior art of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 that would enable the motor being held in place relative to the housing within the motor cavity by a slip fit between the outer diameter of the motor and the inner diameter of the housing. Thus, because the structure of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 makes obvious the claimed structure, it is reasonable to conclude that it will also meet the functional limitation);
a drive shaft 12 coupled to the motor (Fig 1, ¶0018);
a plurality of clamping mechanisms (plurality of clamping mechanisms = four recesses 32 and four protrusions 42, Figs 2-5, ¶0022-¶0026) spaced about the outer diameter of the motor (i.e. protrusions 42 are spaced at intervals of 90 degrees about the outer circumferential surface 29a of the stator core of the motor) configured to constrain the motor within the housing (¶0030, also see ¶0031-¶0032); and,
a compression device 40 coupled to the drive shaft (Fig 1, ¶0018-¶0019), for receiving the refrigerant from the intake volume (via 17) and compressing the refrigerant as the drive shaft is rotated by the motor (¶0019), wherein each of the plurality of clamping mechanisms include a tab (tab = protrusion 42) located on the outer diameter of the motor (as seen in Figs 3/ 4/ 5 the protrusion 42 is located on the outer diameter corresponding to element 29a in the Figures) and a channel (channel = recess 32) located on the inner diameter of the housing (as seen in Figs 3/4/5 the recess 32 is located on the inner diameter corresponding to element 16a in the Figures), each channel being configured to receive a respective tab (Figs 2-5), each tab has first and second sides (first and second sides = 422 Fig 3/4/5, ¶0027, ¶0029-¶0031, ¶0040), each channel having opposing sides (opposing sides = 322 Fig 3/4/5, ¶0023, ¶0029-¶0031, ¶0040), wherein each of the tabs are held in place by an interference fit (interference fit = shrink fit described in the disclosure of Kobayashi; a shrink fit is a known type of interference fit) between the first and second sides of the tab and a respective channel (¶0029-¶0031) resulting in a lateral clamping force applied to each of the first and second sides of each tab by the opposing sides of the respective channel (the shrink fit taught by Kobayashi would inherently result in a force vector being created by the shrink fit, and the portion of the force vector that acts in the circumferential direction corresponds to the claimed lateral clamping force; since the force vector would be present at both sides of the tab/protrusion 42 the lateral clamping force would be applied to both sides as claimed). Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 is silent regarding the limitations: an inverter module mounted inside the housing and adapted to convert direct current electrical power to alternating current electrical power. The prior art of Kowada US 2020/0003199 which is directed to an electric motor driven refrigerant scroll compressor (Figs 1-2, ¶0001, ¶0018-¶0020) like Kobayashi US 2007/0273239, is noted.
However, Kowada US 2020/0003199 does disclose the limitations: An electric compressor (the electric compressor is defined by the sum of its parts) configured to compress a refrigerant (¶0001), comprising:
a housing (= housing 140, ¶0019) defining an intake volume (H1, ¶0019) and a discharge volume (H2, ¶0019), the housing having a generally cylindrical shape (housing 140 includes 142,144,146, 148, ¶0024 elements 142A, 142B1, 144, and 146 of the housing are substantially cylindrical ¶0025, ¶0027, ¶0030) and having a central axis (central axis = longitudinal axis of shaft 166);
a refrigerant inlet port (= conduit of the refrigerant circuit which inherently connects to port P1 of the compressor, ¶0026) coupled to the housing (as seen in Fig 1 P1 is formed in the housing, thus the conduit of the refrigerant circuit which forms the inlet port would inherently be connected to the housing at port P1) and configured to introduce the refrigerant to the intake volume (the conduit forming the inlet port would inherently introduce the refrigerant to the intake volume H1 in Fig 1 via port P1, ¶0026);
an inverter module (180, ¶0019, ¶0036-¶0037) mounted inside the housing (Fig 1, ¶0024) and adapted to convert direct current electrical power to alternating current electrical power (i.e. convert direct current from a battery to alternating current as described in ¶0036).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the housing and the motor of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 with the housing and inverter module of Kowada US 2020/0003199 in order to provide a refrigerant compressor which can operate on power supplied from a vehicle (¶0036).
Regarding Claim 2: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: the motor (26,27,28) including a stator (stator = 28,29,30, ¶0021) having an outer diameter (outer diameter of the stator = diameter defined by outer circumferential surface 29a, ¶0025) which defines the outer diameter of the motor (it does, since the outer diameter of the stator and the outer diameter of the motor are both the diameter defined by outer circumferential surface 29a).
Regarding Claim 3: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: wherein the slip fit between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter is established by an interference therebetween (interference = gap K2 between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter; the slip fit is defined by the gap K2, thus the gap/interference K2 establishes the slip fit as claimed).
Regarding Claim 4: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 does disclose the limitations: wherein the interference K2 between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter has a dimension (the gap/interference K2 inherently has a dimension).
Additionally Regarding Claim 4: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance as modified by Kowada US 2020/0003199 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “the interference is between -25 & 75 microns.”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the interference K2 to be between -25 and 75 microns--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the interference being between -25 and 75 microns versus the design taught by Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance as modified by Kowada US 2020/0003199. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the interference is between -25 and 75 microns and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶00182 of the SPEC indicates that the slip fit / interference defining the slip fit is designed to avoid outward radial forces that may deform the stator (e.g. like the gap/interference K2 taught by Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 which prevents the stator core 29 from experiencing radial forces along the entire circumference and the stator core 29 is prevented from being deformed (see ¶0025, ¶0032)). Thus, when the interference is designed to be between -25 and 75 microns the gap/interference K2 of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of avoiding outward radial forces that may deform the stator.
Regarding Claim 9: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: wherein each tab 42 has a top surface (421, ¶0026, Figs 3/4/5) and each channel 32 has an outer surface (321, ¶0026, Figs 3/4/5), the top surface of each tab and the outer surface of a respective channel having a radial clearance (K1, ¶0026, Figs 3/4/5).
Regarding Claim 10: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: wherein the radial clearance has a dimension (the radial clearance K1 inherently has a dimension).
Additionally Regarding Claim 10: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance as modified by Kowada US 2020/0003199 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “the radial clearance is between 0 and 100 microns”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the radial clearance K1 to be between 0 and 100 microns--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the radial clearance being between 0 and 100 microns versus the design taught by Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance as modified by Kowada US 2020/0003199. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the radial clearance is between 0 and 100 microns and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶00179 of the SPEC indicates that the radial clearance is used to prevent a clamping force or radial force from being applied to the stator via the clamping mechanisms (e.g. like the radial clearance K1 taught by Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 which prevents the stator core 29 from being deformed from a circular shape ¶0034, also see ¶0031-¶0033). Thus, when the radial clearance is designed to be between 0 and 100 microns the radial clearance K1 of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of preventing a clamping force or radial force from being applied to the stator via the clamping mechanisms.
Regarding Claim 21: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: An electric compressor (the electric compressor is defined by the sum of its parts) having a central axis (central axis = central axis of housing 16 similar to axis L in Fig 1) and being configured to compress a refrigerant (¶0017), comprising:
a housing (16, ¶0017) defining an intake volume (intake volume = small cylindrical volume in housing 16 at the right side of Fig 1 where the refrigerant enters) and a discharge volume (21, ¶0017), an inner diameter of the housing (inner diameter = diameter of inner circumferential surface 16a, ¶0022, Fig 1) defining a motor cavity (motor cavity = space inside housing 16 which is defined by inner circumferential surface 16a in Figs 1-2; since the inner diameter of the housing inherently defines the inner circumferential surface 16a – which in turn defines the motor cavity, the prior art addresses the claim language as written);
a refrigerant inlet port (= opening to the small cylindrical volume that is connected to the refrigerant circuit) coupled to the housing (Fig 1) and configured to introduce the refrigerant to the intake volume (as understood from Fig 1, the refrigerant flows through the opening/inlet port into the inlet volume and then into the motor cavity in Fig 1);
a refrigerant outlet port (= opening that is connected to the refrigerant circuit on the left side of Fig 1and which communicates with chamber 21) coupled to the housing (Fig 1) and configured to allow compressed refrigerant to exit the electric compressor from the discharge volume (¶0018, Fig 1);
a motor section (the motor section is defined by the sum of its parts) including:
a drive shaft 12 located within the housing (Fig 1), having first and second ends (first and second ends = left and right ends of shaft 12 in Fig 1) and defining a center axis (center axis = axis L in Fig 1, ¶0027), and
a motor (26,27,28, Figs 1-2, ¶0017-¶0019) located within the housing (see Figs 1-2) to controllably rotate the drive shaft about the center axis (¶0017-¶0019), the motor having an outer diameter (outer diameter = diameter defined by outer circumferential surface 29a, ¶0025, Fig 2) and being held in place relative to the housing within the motor cavity (stator core 29 of stator 28 is fixed to the housing 16 by shrink fitting (¶0001-¶0003, especially ¶0003) thus the outer diameter is held in place relative to the housing within the motor cavity as claimed) by a slip fit between the outer diameter of the motor and the inner diameter of the housing (¶0032 states that after the housing has been shrunk a gap K2 exists between the outer diameter of the stator core 29 and the inner diameter of the housing 16, also see Figs 3-5, ¶0025, ¶0039-¶0044; additionally as seen in the evidence of Schermer US 2004/0096367 – a slip-fit is when an aperture (e.g. 112 in Figs 1C-1E) which is slightly larger than the diameter of the part it receives (see ¶0009-¶00010, Figs 1C-1F & Fig 1H) receives a part so there is a slight gap between the two parts; also as seen in the evidence of Slip fit Tolerances – a slip fit is a type of clearance fit where there is always a small gap between the two parts like a pin and a hole (Page 3 ¶1) and if you had a 0.5-inch pin for a slip fit one would design the hole to be 0.0501 to 0.0502 inches to ensure the pin can always slide in (top of Page 4) – accordingly, in the prior art of Kobayashi – since a small gap K2 is present between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter of the housing after assembly (Fig 3, ¶0025, ¶0032 / Fig 4, ¶0039 / Fig 5, ¶0040-¶0046) – this gap is similar to what would be present in a slip fit – accordingly the prior art of Kobayashi teaches a slip fit; Further, the claims do not recite any particular structure beside what is claimed and made obvious by the prior art of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 that would enable the motor being held in place relative to the housing within the motor cavity by a slip fit between the outer diameter of the motor and the inner diameter of the housing. Thus, because the structure of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 makes obvious the claimed structure, it is reasonable to conclude that it will also meet the functional limitation),
a compression device 40 coupled to the drive shaft (Fig 1, ¶0018-¶019), for receiving the refrigerant from the intake volume (via 17) and compressing the refrigerant as the drive shaft is rotated by the motor (¶0019), the compression device including:
a fixed scroll (13, ¶0017, Fig 1) located within, and being fixed relative to, the housing (Fig 1, ¶0017);
an orbiting scroll (11, ¶0017, ¶0019, Fig 1) coupled to the drive shaft (¶0017, ¶0019, Fig 1), the orbiting scroll and the fixed scroll forming compression chambers 14 for receiving the refrigerant from the intake volume and compressing the refrigerant as the drive shaft is rotated about the center axis (¶0017, ¶0019, Fig 1); and,
a plurality of clamping mechanisms (plurality of clamping mechanisms = four recesses 32 and four protrusions 42, Figs 2-5, ¶0022-¶0026) spaced about the outer diameter of the motor (i.e. protrusions 42 are spaced at intervals of 90 degrees about the outer circumferential surface 29a of the stator core of the motor) configured to constrain the motor within the housing (¶0030, also see ¶0031-¶0032), the motor including a stator (stator = 28,29,30, ¶0021) having an outer diameter (outer diameter of the stator = diameter defined by outer circumferential surface 29a, ¶0025) which defines the outer diameter of the motor (it does, since the outer diameter of the stator and the outer diameter of the motor are both the diameter defined by outer circumferential surface 29a), wherein each of the plurality of clamping mechanisms include a tab (tab = protrusion 42) located on the outer diameter of the motor (as seen in Figs 3/ 4/ 5 the protrusion 42 is located on the outer diameter corresponding to element 29a in the Figures) and a channel (channel = recess 32) located on the inner diameter of the housing (as seen in Figs 3/4/5 the recess 32 is located on the inner diameter corresponding to element 16a in the Figures), each channel being configured to receive a respective tab (Figs 2-5), each tab has first and second sides (first and second sides = 422 Fig 3/4/5, ¶0027, ¶0029-¶0031, ¶0040), each channel having opposing sides (opposing sides = 322 Fig 3/4/5, ¶0023, ¶0029-¶0031, ¶0040), wherein each of the tabs are held in place by an interference fit (interference fit = shrink fit described in the disclosure of Kobayashi; a shrink fit is a known type of interference fit) between the first and second sides of the tab and a respective channel (¶0029-¶0031) resulting in a lateral clamping force applied to each of the first and second sides of each tab by the opposing sides the respective channel (the shrink fit taught by Kobayashi would inherently result in a force vector being created by the shrink fit, and the portion of the force vector that acts in the circumferential direction corresponds to the claimed lateral clamping force; since the force vector would be present at both sides of the tab/protrusion 42 the lateral clamping force would be applied to both sides as claimed). Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 is silent regarding the limitations: an inverter section including: an inverter housing, an inverter back cover connected to the inverter housing and forming an inverter cavity, an inverter module mounted inside the inverter cavity and adapted to convert direct current electrical power to alternating current electrical power. The prior art of Kowada US 2020/0003199 which is directed to an electric motor driven refrigerant scroll compressor (Figs 1-2, ¶0001, ¶0018-¶0020) like Kobayashi US 2007/0273239, is noted.
PNG
media_image1.png
811
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Kowada US 2020/0003199 (Attached Figure A)
However, Kowada US 2020/0003199 does disclose the limitations:
An electric compressor (the electric compressor is defined by the sum of its parts) having a central axis (i.e. central axis extending through passage L2 in Fig 1) and being configured to compress a refrigerant (¶0001), comprising:
a housing (= housing identified in Annotated Figure 1 of Kowada US 2020/0003199 (Attached Figure A) above, ¶0019, ¶0024) defining an intake volume (H1, ¶0019) and a discharge volume (H2, ¶0019);
a refrigerant inlet port (= conduit of the refrigerant circuit which inherently connects to port P1 of the compressor, ¶0026) coupled to the housing (as seen in Fig 1 P1 is formed in the housing, thus the conduit of the refrigerant circuit which forms the inlet port would inherently be connected to the housing at port P1) and configured to introduce the refrigerant to the intake volume (the conduit forming the inlet port would inherently introduce the refrigerant to the intake volume H1 in Fig 1 via port P1, ¶0026);
an inverter section (the inverter section is defined by the sum of its parts) including: an inverter housing (Attached Figure A), an inverter back cover (Attached Figure A) connected to the inverter housing (¶0024) and forming an inverter cavity (Attached Figure A), an inverter module (180, Attached Figure A, ¶0019, ¶0036-¶0037) mounted inside the inverter cavity (as seen in Fig 1, ¶0024, and Attached Figure A) and adapted to convert direct current electrical power to alternating current electrical power (i.e. convert direct current from a battery to alternating current as described in ¶0036).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the housing and the motor of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 with the housing, inverter housing, inverter back cover, and inverter module of Kowada US 2020/0003199 in order to provide a refrigerant compressor which can operate on power supplied from a vehicle (¶0036).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance in view of Kowada US 2020/0003199 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kozarekar US 2020/0112226.
Regarding Claim 8: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance as modified by Kowada US 2020/0003199 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses: wherein an interference between the first and second sides of each tab and the opposing sides of the channel (interference = amount that the first and second sides 422 interfere with/engage with the corresponding opposing sides 322 after the shrink fit is performed) is present (the articulated interference is inherently present following the shrink fit described by Kobayashi). Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 does not disclose the limitations: the interference is 100-200 microns.
Furthermore, Kozarekar US 2020/0112226 discloses that: the tightness of a press fit (i.e. the force required to make the press fit connection) is based on the extent of the interference (¶0021-¶0022).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the initial size difference between the opposing sides of the channels 32 and the first and second sides of each tab 42 which are fit together (Kobayashi - ¶0001-¶0003, ¶0029) in the art of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 with the interference size of between 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm (i.e. 100-200 microns) between the stator and the housing which are press-fit together (Kozarekar - ¶0021-¶0022) as taught by Kozarekar US 2020/0112226 in order to ensure: that the stiffness of the stator housing assembly reduces the resonance during operation of the motor (Kozarekar - ¶0021), and/or that the tightness of the fit is appropriate for the size and materials of the stator housing assembly (Kozarekar - ¶0021-¶0022).
Additionally or in the alternate, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the initial size difference between the opposing sides of the channels 32 and the first and second sides of each tab 42 of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239, specifically to set the interference between the opposing sides and the first and second surfaces to be between 100-200 microns, to ensure: that the stiffness of the stator housing assembly reduces the resonance during operation of the motor (Kozarekar - ¶0021), and/or that the tightness of the fit is appropriate for the size and materials of the stator housing assembly (Kozarekar - ¶0021-¶0022) as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance.
Regarding Claim 14: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: wherein an interference between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter (interference = gap K2 between the outer diameter of the stator and the inner diameter; the slip fit is defined by the gap K2) is present (as explained in the disclosure of Kobayashi the gap/interference K2 is present in the device of Kobayashi) and has a dimension (the gap/interference K2 inherently has a dimension).
Additionally Regarding Claim 14: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance discloses the claimed limitations except for: “the interference is between -25 & 75 microns.”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the interference K2 to be between -25 and 75 microns--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the interference being between -25 and 75 microns versus the design taught by Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the interference is between -25 and 75 microns and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶00182 of the SPEC indicates that the slip fit / interference defining the slip fit is designed to avoid outward radial forces that may deform the stator (e.g. like the gap/interference K2 taught by Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 which prevents the stator core 29 from experiencing radial forces along the entire circumference and the stator core 29 is prevented from being deformed (see ¶0025, ¶0032)). Thus, when the interference is designed to be between -25 and 75 microns the gap/interference K2 of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of avoiding outward radial forces that may deform the stator.
Regarding Claim 20: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses the limitations: wherein the radial clearance has a dimension (the radial clearance K1 inherently has a dimension).
Additionally Regarding Claim 20: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance discloses the claimed limitations except for: “the radial clearance is between 0 and 100 microns”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the radial clearance K1 to be between 0 and 100 microns--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the radial clearance being between 0 and 100 microns versus the design taught by Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the radial clearance is between 0 and 100 microns and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶00179 of the SPEC indicates that the radial clearance is used to prevent a clamping force or radial force from being applied to the stator via the clamping mechanisms (e.g. like the radial clearance K1 taught by Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 which prevents the stator core 29 from being deformed from a circular shape ¶0034, also see ¶0031-¶0033). Thus, when the radial clearance is designed to be between 0 and 100 microns the radial clearance K1 of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of preventing a clamping force or radial force from being applied to the stator via the clamping mechanisms.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kozarekar US 2020/0112226.
Regarding Claim 18: Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 as evidenced by Schermer US 2004/0096367 and Slip Fit tolerance discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 11. Additionally, Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 discloses: wherein an interference between the first and second sides of each tab and the opposing sides of the channel (interference = amount that the first and second sides 422 interfere with/engage with the corresponding opposing sides 322 after the shrink fit is performed) is present (the articulated interference is inherently present following the shrink fit described by Kobayashi). Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 does not disclose the limitations: the interference is 100-200 microns.
Furthermore, Kozarekar US 2020/0112226 discloses that: the tightness of a press fit (i.e. the force required to make the press fit connection) is based on the extent of the interference (¶0021-¶0022).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the initial size difference between the opposing sides of the channels 32 and the first and second sides of each tab 42 which are fit together (Kobayashi - ¶0001-¶0003, ¶0029) in the art of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239 with the interference size of between 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm (i.e. 100-200 microns) between the stator and the housing which are press-fit together (Kozarekar - ¶0021-¶0022) as taught by Kozarekar US 2020/0112226 in order to ensure: that the stiffness of the stator housing assembly reduces the resonance during operation of the motor (Kozarekar - ¶0021), and/or that the tightness of the fit is appropriate for the size and materials of the stator housing assembly (Kozarekar - ¶0021-¶0022).
Additionally or in the alternate, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the initial size difference between the opposing sides of the channels 32 and the first and second sides of each tab 42 of Kobayashi US 2007/0273239, specifically to set the interference between the opposing sides and the first and second surfaces to be between 100-200 microns, to ensure: that the stiffness of the stator housing assembly reduces the resonance during operation of the motor (Kozarekar - ¶0021), and/or that the tightness of the fit is appropriate for the size and materials of the stator housing assembly (Kozarekar - ¶0021-¶0022) as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicants in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123). Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 21 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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights