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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 5/11/2026. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claims 1-8, 18-19 have been amended. Claims 9-17, 20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-8, the Applicant argued that KENJO does not disclose "a rotor with a longitudinal axis, ... wherein a radially inward-facing surface of the stator, defining a radially outward boundary of the air gap, comprises: one or more circumferential grooves, each extending continuously around the longitudinal axis and separating the radially inward-facing surface into a plurality of axially spaced regions," as recited in amended claim 1. At most, KENJO may disclose localized features, such as recesses (e.g., 819) or protrusions (e.g., 90a), formed on individual stator teeth (see, e.g., KENJO Fig. 10; [0067]; Office Action, p. 4). However, these features do not satisfy the requirement of amended claim 1 that "one or more circumferential grooves, each extending continuously around the longitudinal axis and separating the radially inward-facing surface into a plurality of axially spaced regions." Rather, as shown in Fig. 10 and described in [0067], features 819 and 90a are discrete, tooth-based structures that are circumferentially interrupted by the stator teeth themselves. Indeed, the Office Action acknowledges that the features are spaced apart by a circumferential distance (e.g., "distance between the teeth 815"), confirming that such features are segmented and not continuous. Even when considering assembly of stator components, such features do not form a groove "extending continuously around the longitudinal axis," but instead remain discontinuous structures tied to individual teeth. The Examiner's reliance on "circumferential rings" of partial grooves likewise does not satisfy the claimed requirement. A plurality of discrete features arranged in circumferential rings and separated by circumferential distances does not form a groove "extending continuously around the longitudinal axis," but instead defines a segmented arrangement of individual features. Moreover, KENJO does not disclose any grooves that "separate the radially inward-facing surface into a plurality of axially spaced regions," as required amended claim 1. While the Office Action asserts that such features are "spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal axis" (Office Action, p. 4), this describes only the relative placement of discrete features, not the presence of circumferential grooves that define and separate distinct axial regions of the stator surface (see, e.g., KENJO Fig. 10 and associated description, which lack any disclosure of circumferential grooves forming axially spaced regions). Second, KENJO does not disclose "wherein a radially inward-facing surface of the stator, defining a radially outward boundary of the air gap, comprises: ... either: a plurality of partial grooves different from the one or more circumferential grooves and located within at least one of the plurality of axially spaced regions, wherein each partial groove comprises a discrete recess, extending radially outward from the radially inward-facing surface, separated from an adjacent partial groove by a portion of the radially inward-facing surface, or a plurality of riblets, extending across an entire axial length of the at least one of the plurality of axially spaced regions, that protrude from the radially inward-facing surface and are parallel with each other," as recited in amended claim 1. The Office Action relies on features 819 as allegedly corresponding to the claimed "partial grooves" and features 90a as allegedly corresponding to the claimed "riblets". The Office Action further asserts that such features are arranged in circumferential rings and spaced apart circumferentially and axially. However, these identified features do not satisfy the recited structural requirements. With respect to the claimed "partial grooves," amended claim 1 requires that "each partial groove comprises a discrete recess, extending radially outward from the radially inward-facing surface, separated from an adjacent partial groove by a portion of the radially inward-facing surface." In contrast, features 819 in KENJO are localized, tooth-based features formed on individual stator teeth. These features are not disclosed as discrete recesses formed into a continuous radially inward-facing surface. Further, KENJO may include surfaces associated with stator teeth. However, it does not disclose a continuous radially inward-facing surface having "discrete recess ... separated from an adjacent partial groove by a portion of the radially inward-facing surface," as required by amended claim 1. Rather, any spacing between features 819 is defined by intervening tooth structures (e.g., teeth 815), not by portions of a continuous surface. Accordingly, the Examiner's mapping treats spaces between protrusions or tooth structures as the claimed "partial grooves," even though the claim requires "each partial groove comprise a discrete recess ... formed into the radially inward-facing surface." KENJO does not disclose such recessed grooves. Similarly, with respect to the alternative claimed "riblet," amended claim 1 recites "a plurality of riblets ... extending across an entire axial length of the ... region ... and [that] are parallel with each other." The Office Action identifies features 90a as corresponding to the claimed riblets and further asserts that such features are "arranged as a plurality of ribs that are each oriented along an axial axis" and "spaced apart from each other around the longitudinal axis". However, even under the Examiner's interpretation, these features do not satisfy the claimed riblet configuration. As acknowledged in the Office Action, the features are spaced apart circumferentially (e.g., by the distance between teeth 815), which confirms that the features are discrete and associated with individual stator teeth. Thus, the identified features are tooth-based and segmented, rather than riblets formed on and extending along a continuous radially inward-facing surface. In particular, because each feature 90a is associated with a separate stator tooth, the features do not extend "across an entire axial length of the ... region," but instead are confined to individual tooth structures and interrupted by adjacent teeth. Even if each set of features on a given tooth extends along an axial direction, such features are confined to individual tooth surfaces and do not extend across an entire axial length of a region defined on a continuous radially inward-facing surface, as required by the claim. While KENJO may disclose features that are oriented generally along an axial direction, such orientation does not satisfy the requirement that the riblets extend "across an entire axial length of the ... region" or that the riblets "are parallel with each other" across such a region. Rather, the identified features are discrete protrusions tied to separate stator teeth, and therefore do not meet the claimed riblet configuration.
This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 as amended is not distinguished from Kenjo (US 2011/0018384 A1). Claim 1 recites the alternative “either…or” and Kenjo clearly shows the rotor, the stator, and the plurality of riblets 90a. The stator 3 when assembled is a circular structure having regular features 90a, 819 on its interior surface that extend the entire circumference of the stator 3. The surfaces 819 of the tooth portions 815 are partial grooves 819 that together form circumferential grooves. The raised portions 90a are riblets that extend across an entire axial length of the stator 3 and are parallel with each other. Claim 1 does not recite that the inward-facing surface is a circumferentially continuous surface. The Applicant’s argument that the identified features are tooth-based and segmented does not distinguish the structure of Kenjo from claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 19, the last line, “second plurality of ribs of the nose portion” should be -- first plurality of ribs of the nose portion --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kenjo et al. (US 2011/0018384 A1, hereinafter Kenjo).
As to claim 1, Kenjo shows (FIG. 1, 10) A system comprising:
a rotor 2 with a longitudinal axis J1;
a stator 3 encircling the rotor 2 and concentric with the longitudinal axis J1; and
an air gap between the stator 3 and the rotor 2,
wherein a radially inward-facing surface of the stator 3, defining a radially outward boundary of the air gap, comprises:
one or more circumferential grooves, each extending continuously around the longitudinal axis and separating the radially inward-facing surface into a plurality of axially spaced regions, and either:
a plurality of partial grooves 819 different from the one or more circumferential grooves and located within at least one of the plurality of axially spaced regions, wherein each partial groove comprises a discrete recess, extending radially outward from the radially inward-facing surface, separated from an adjacent partial groove by a portion of the radially inward-facing surface, or
a plurality of riblets 90a, extending across an entire axial length of the at least one of the plurality of axially spaced regions, that protrude from the radially inward-facing surface and are parallel with each other (para [0067]).
As to claim 2/1, Kenjo further shows (FIG. 1, 10) wherein the radially inward-facing surface of the stator 3 comprises the plurality of partial grooves 819.
As to claim 3/2/1, Kenjo further shows (FIG. 1, 10) wherein the plurality of partial grooves 819 are arranged in a plurality of circumferential rings around the longitudinal axis J1, wherein each of the plurality of circumferential rings comprises two or more partial grooves of the plurality of partial grooves, wherein the two or more partial grooves are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction about the longitudinal axis J1.
As to claim 4/3/2/1, Kenjo further shows (FIG. 1, 10) wherein the plurality of partial grooves 819 are spaced apart from each other at equal circumferential distances about the longitudinal axis J1 (distance between the teeth 815).
As to claim 5/1, Kenjo further shows (FIG. 1, 10) wherein the radially inward-facing surface of the stator 3 comprises the plurality of riblets 90a.
As to claim 6/5/1, Kenjo further shows (FIG. 1, 10) wherein the plurality of riblets 90a are arranged as a plurality of ribs that extends along an axial axis parallel to the longitudinal axis J1, wherein the plurality of riblets 90a are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction about the longitudinal axis J1 (distance between the teeth 815).
As to claim 7/5/1, Kenjo further shows (FIG. 1, 10) wherein the plurality of riblets 90a are arranged in a plurality of circumferential rings around the longitudinal axis J1, wherein the plurality of circumferential rings are spaced apart from each other about the longitudinal axis J1.
As to claim 8/7/5/1, Kenjo further shows (FIG. 1, 10) wherein each of the plurality of circumferential rings comprises two or more of the plurality of riblets 90a that are spaced apart from each other at equal circumferential intervals along the longitudinal axis J1.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenjo et al. (US 2011/0018384 A1, hereinafter Kenjo) in view of Murakami et al. (US 20070205688 A1, hereinafter Murakami).
As to claim 18/1, Kenjo was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Kenjo further shows (FIG. 1) the system of Claim 1; a shaft 21 having the longitudinal axis J1; and a plurality of rotor assemblies 22, 23 attached to the shaft 21.
Kenjo does not show an integrated compressor.
Murakami shows an integrated compressor 32 (FIG. 21, para [0086]).
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 motor of Kenjo to have an integrated compressor 32 as taught by Murakami, for the advantageous benefit of providing refrigeration in a refrigerator as taught by Murakami (para [0093]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or suggest a plurality of ribs on a radially inward-facing surface aligned with a plurality of ribs on a nose portion of a support structure in combination with the other elements recited in claim 19.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kadoya et al. (US 6984909 B2) shows axial ribs on a stator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights