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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 27, 2026 has been entered. Independent claim 15 has been amended and claim 28 has been canceled. Claims 15-16 and 19-27 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of KR 10-2020-0085166 A (hereinafter “Min”) in view of US 10,624,243 B2 (hereinafter “Aitzetmueller”) and US 2012/0237376 A1 (hereinafter “Kinoshita”).
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.
Claims 15, 19-22, 24-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita.
Regarding claim 15, Min discloses a housing unit (inverter module 200) for an inverter (inverter substrate 230) of an electrical refrigerant compressor (compressing unit 105), wherein the housing unit comprises (200):
a first housing element (first inverter housing 210) and a second housing element (second inverter housing 220), which can be connected to a housing part (compressor module 100) of the refrigerant compressor (105), and in the process form a cavity (inverter room S4) which accommodates the inverter (230), wherein the housing unit (200) further comprises:
at least one plug-connector housing (211 shown in Fig. 4), the at least one plug-connector housing (211) having electrical contact elements (not shown, but these would be inherent in order for the plugs shown to function) for electrically contacting the inverter (230) accommodated in the cavity (S4), and
seal elements or a sealing material (fastening member 240 and vibration absorbing member 250), which is/are arranged between the first housing element (210) and the second housing element (220) and the housing part (100) of the refrigerant compressor (105) for dust-tight and fluid-tight sealing (see paragraph spanning pgs. 10 and 11 stating that the vibration absorbing member 250 can perform dustproof and waterproof functions).
Min lacks a specific teaching that the plug-connector housing is integrally molded on an
outside of the housing unit.
Kinoshita discloses a plug-connector (power connector 44) housing (insulating cover 48) integrally molded on an outside of an inverter housing unit (outer insulating portion 71; from paragraph 0055: “The outer insulating portion 71 is formed integrally with and continuous with the insulating cover 48.”).
Min and Kinoshita are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, integrally mold the plug-connector housing on the outside of the housing unit. Doing so would improve the waterproof and dustproof properties of the housing unit. Further, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Min fails to teach that electromagnetic shielding for the inverter is accommodated in the cavity in an interior of the housing unit, the electromagnetic shielding comprising metal inserts, wherein the metal inserts are arranged between the inverter and the housing elements, and wherein the metal inserts enclose the inverter and form a closed shell around the inverter when the first housing element and the second housing element are connected to each other.
Aitzetmueller teaches a housing unit (housing 14) for an inverter (circuit board 32) with electromagnetic shielding (see col. 10 lines 47-56) accommodated in a cavity in an interior of the housing unit (14). The electromagnetic shielding comprises metal inserts (shielding plates 69, 70, and 71). The metal inserts (69, 70, and 71) are arranged between the inverter (32) and housing elements (front cover 15 and basic shell 16; see Figs. 5-6). The metal inserts (69, 70, and 71) enclose the inverter (32) and form a closed shell around the inverter (see Figs. 5-6 and col. 10 lines 47-56) when the first housing element (15) and the second housing element (16) are connected to each other.
Aitzetmueller is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include metal inserts within in the cavity of the housing unit to enclose the inverter. Doing so would shield the inverter from electromagnetic interference (Aitzetmueller: see col. 4, lines 63-66).
The metal inserts disclosed in Aitzetmueller do not include a first one that is accommodated by, and corresponds to an inner surface of, a first housing element.
Kinoshita discloses a metal insert (metal plate 42) that corresponds to an inner surface of a first housing element (inverter cover 70, which includes outer insulating portion 71 and circumferential insulating portion 72). The metal insert (42) is accommodated by the first housing element (see paragraph 0055 and Fig. 5 showing metal plate 42 matching the inner surface of outer insulating portion 71 and circumferential insulating portion 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to have one of the metal inserts correspond to an inner surface of the first housing element. Doing so would improve electromagnetic shielding and increase the size of the cavity accommodating the inverter component. A larger cavity would allow for more components to be disposed within.
Regarding claim 19, Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita further teaches the housing unit according to claim 15, wherein a hole (Min: not enumerated, but clearly seen in Figs. 2, 4, 7a, and 9) is formed on a side of the first housing element (Min: 210) facing the housing part (Min: 100) of the refrigerant compressor (Min: 105), the hole allowing contact between the inverter (Min: 230) accommodated in the cavity (Min: S4) of the housing unit (Min: 200) and the housing part (Min: 100) of the refrigerant compressor (Min: 105).
Regarding claim 20, Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita further teaches the housing unit according to claim 15, wherein the first housing element (Min: 210) and the second housing element (Min: 220) are connected to one another and/or to the housing part (Min: 100) of the electrical refrigerant compressor (Min: 105) by screw-fastening, by a latch connection (Min: body portion 241, first 242 and second 243 locking portions), or by welding.
Regarding claim 21, Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita further teaches the housing unit according to claim 15, wherein the sealing material (Min: 240 and 250) is a rubber (see Min pg. 10, paragraph 8 wherein it states that vibration absorbing member 250 may be a rubber gasket), a plastic or a plastic foam (see Min pg. 10, paragraph 6 stating that fastening member 240 may be formed of plastic), which is attached fixedly to the first housing element (Min: 210) and the second housing element (Min: 220) by adhesive bonding or by injection-moulding (see Min pg. 10, paragraph 6 stating that fastening member 240 may be formed through injection molding).
Regarding claim 22, Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita further teaches the housing unit according to claim 15, wherein the sealing material (Min: 240 and 250) is a 2-component plastic having an elastic plastic component (see Min pg. 10, paragraph 6 stating that fastening member 240 may be plastic; see Min pg. 10, paragraph 8 stating that vibration absorbing member 250 may be made of an elastic material).
Regarding claim 24, Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita further teaches the housing unit according to claim 15, wherein the cavity (Min: S4) is formed with a moulding (Min: top of 210) formed on the first housing element (Min: 210), wherein the second housing element (Min: 220) forms a cover which covers at least the moulding of the first housing element (Min: 210), in which the inverter (Min: 230) is accommodated (see Min Figs. 3-4 showing 220 covering molding of 210).
Regarding claim 25, Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita teaches all of the limitations of claim 24 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita further teaches the housing unit according to claim 24, wherein the first housing element (Kinoshita: 70) and/or the second housing element are formed from a plastic or a metal (see paragraph 0055 stating that inverter cover 70 is made of plastic).
Regarding claim 27, Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita teaches all of the limitations of claim 22 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita further teaches the housing unit according to claim 22, wherein the at least one plug-connector housing (Min: 211; Kinoshita: 48) having the electrical contact elements (Kinoshita: terminal 43) for electrically contacting the inverter (Min: 230; Kinoshita: inverter 40) accommodated in the cavity (Min: S4; Kinoshita: accommodation space 41a) is moulded on the second housing element and/or on the first housing element (see Min Figs. 1-2 and 4 showing 211 disposed on first inverter housing 210; see Kinoshita paragraph 0055 and Fig. 5).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of KR 10-2016-0104397 A (hereinafter “Kang”).
Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita lacks a specific teaching that the first housing element and the second housing element are formed from electrically conductive plastic.
Kang teaches a housing unit (inverter housing 10) for an inverter of an electrical refrigerant compressor (compressor 100) that is formed from electrically conductive plastic (see pg. 3, paragraph 2 describing an electromagnetic wave shielding film may be attached to the plastic surface of inverter housing 10).
Kang is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to make the first and second housing elements out of plastic coated in an electromagnetic wave shielding film. Doing so would provide electromagnetic shielding and reduce weight (Kang: see Abstract).
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2019/0089228 A1 (hereinafter “Fukuda”).
Regarding claim 23, Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller and Kinoshita lacks a specific teaching that the sealing material between the first housing element and the second housing element is a melt which is formed from a material forming the first housing element and the second housing element during welding of contact faces of the first housing element and the second housing element.
Fukuda teaches a housing unit for an inverter (inverter equipment 20) of an electrical refrigerant compressor (electric compressor 1) wherein the housing unit (20) comprises a first housing element (lid 30) and a second housing element (inverter case 21). The first (30) and second (21) housing elements are welded together (see paragraph 0118 stating inverter case 21 and lid 30 are joined by welding).
Fukuda is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to weld the first and second housing elements together. Welding the first and second housing elements together would provide a strong, dust-proof and water-tight, seal.
Regarding claim 26, Min in view of Aitzetmueller, Kinoshita, and Fukuda teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 as stated above. Min in view of Aitzetmueller, Kinoshita, and Fukuda teach each and every structural element of the second housing element (Min 220; Fukuda 21) set forth in the claims.
Min and Fukuda teach second housing elements, but are silent as to the method that they are made. The claimed phrase “a cast part or a punched metal part” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, the second housing element is made by casting or metal punching. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Min and Fukuda are silent as to the process used to create the second housing element, it appears that the product in these references would be the same or similar as that claimed.
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 ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights