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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12 and 15-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “wherein through holes as a flow path through which plastic resin can pass when the first resin portion is injection-molded are formed in the metal plate--.” It is unclear if the claimed through holes are designed to allow passage of a plastic resin after the injection molding of the first resin portion or if the plastic resin is the first resin portion that is injection molded. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as follows: “wherein through holes as a flow path through which plastic resin forming the first resin can pass when the first resin portion is injection molded are formed in the metal plate.”
Claims 3-4, 6-12 and 15-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 16:In Figures 1-5, Kinoshita discloses an electric compressor (100) wherein a central plate portion (central portion of 23) is formed in a center of the metal plate (a large section of the metal plate 23 can be designated as the central portion wherein this central portion would include the center of the metal plate 23), and wherein the central plate portion is formed relatively thicker than other portions of the metal plate (the central plate portion of 23 includes a portion 23c that is axially thicker than the other portions of the metal plate when the thickness is measured in the axial direction). NOTE: In the instant invention, the exact center of the metal plate has not been defined. Furthermore, the thickness has not been depicted in the drawings and so it is not fully clear if the entirety of the central portion is of the same uniform thickness or if there are thicker sections of thickness within this central portion. This claim has been broadly interpreted due to the lack of information.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (herein Kinoshita) (US 2016/0281698) in view of Yano et al. (herein Yano) (US 2017/0100984).Regarding Claims 1 and 4:In Figures 1-5, Kinoshita discloses an electric compressor (100) comprising: a motor unit (130) configured to generate power; a compression unit (120) configured to receive the power from the motor unit and to compress a refrigerant (see paragraphs [0018] and [0021]); an inverter (140) configured to control the motor unit (see paragraph [0018]); and a cover (150) configured to be coupled to one side of the inverter (as seen in Figure 1), wherein the cover (150) further comprises: a metal plate (160, see paragraph [0032]); a first resin portion (lower inner portion of resin portion170 affixed to the bottom of 160 in Figure 3, henceforth referred to as 170) configured to be disposed on an inside of the metal plate (as seen in Figure 3); and a second resin portion (upper outer portion of resin portion 170 depicted as 151 in Figure 3, henceforth referred to as 151) configured to be disposed on an outside of the metal plate in such a way as to correspond to some areas of the first resin portion (as seen in Figures 2-3),wherein the inverter further comprises a housing (formed by cover 150 and bottom wall 112b, see paragraph [0025]) that forms an exterior thereof (as seen in Figure 1),wherein through holes (163, 164 and 165, see Figure 4) as a flow path through which plastic resin forming the first resin portion (170 is disclosed as an epoxy resin which is known to be a thermosetting plastic resin, see paragraph [0032]) can pass when the first resin portion made is formed in the metal plate (as seen in Figure 3, the resin encapsulates the entirety of the metal plate including the inside of the holes. This is further established in paragraph [0044] wherein it is stated that the thermal expansion of the first resin portion 170 is restricted inside the holes 165 clearly indicating that the first resin portion flows into these holes) and the through holes are formed in plural numbers spaced apart in the circumferential direction (as seen in Figure 4, the holes 163, 164 and 165 are spaced apart in the circumferential direction), and wherein the first resin portion (170) and the second resin portion (151) pass through the through holes and are integrally connected to each other (as seen in Figure 3, the first resin portion 170 and the second resin portion 151 are integrally connected to each other via the holes at connecting portions generally depicted as 153).Kinoshita is silent regarding a circuit board. However, in Figures 1-3, Yano discloses a similar compressor (100) the inverter further comprises a housing (111) that forms an exterior thereof (as seen in Figure 1), and a circuit board (121) which is received in the housing and on which a plurality of elements is mounted (see paragraph [0033]), and wherein at least a portion of a first resin portion (34) is formed to face the circuit board (as seen in Figure 1). Yano also discloses a seal (126) disposed between a side wall member (114) of the inverter housing (111) and the cover (21) to seal the interior space (123) of the inverter from the exterior space (124). Hence, based on Yano’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have modified Kinoshita’s inverter housing with an inverter housing (111) of the type taught by Yano with a raised sidewall (114) and a seal disposed between Kinoshita’s existing inverter cover and the raised sidewall (114), since doing so would provide a seal between the inverter cover and the inverter housing, thereby ensuring that no moisture or contaminants entered the interior of the inverter housing. It is noted that while Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose a circuit board, it is extremely well known in the art that inverter’s typically have a circuit board with a plurality of control elements mounted thereon (as evidenced by Yano in paragraph [0033]. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that Kinoshita’s inverter (140) would include a circuit board with a plurality of elements mounted on it based on common knowledge in the art and the evidence provided by Yano.After the proposed modification, Kinoshita’s first resin portion (170) would face the circuit board since it already faces Kinoshita’s inverter (140) as seen in Kinoshita’s Figure 1. Further regarding claims 1 and 4: In Figures 1-5, Kinoshita discloses the electric compressor (100) wherein the first resin portion (170) and the second resin portion (151) are integrally molded (as described in paragraph [0033]).Kinoshita is silent regarding whether the molding is injection-molding. However, injection-molding is an extremely well known method for forming resin portions.Hence, based on common knowledge in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized injection-molding to integrally mold the first resin portion and the second resin portion, since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as reducing the manufacturing complexity and potentially reducing manufacturing costs. Regarding Claim 3:Kinoshita as modified discloses an electric compressor (100) wherein the second resin portion (151) corresponds to a peripheral shape of the first resin portion (170) and is formed to have a predetermined area (as seen clearly in Figure 3).Regarding Claim 6:Kinoshita as modified by Yano discloses the electric compressor, wherein the plurality of through holes (163, 164, 165) is disposed along an outer perimeter of the first resin portion and the second resin portion (at the outer perimeter as evident from Figures 4 and 5).Regarding Claim 7:Kinoshita as modified by Yano discloses the electric compressor, wherein the first resin portion further comprises an inner surface (bottom inner surface of 170), and a side wall (wall on the interior of portion denoted as 152 in Figure 3) that protrudes toward the circuit board along a perimeter of the inner surface (as evident from Figure 3, the side wall would protrude radially towards the circuit board from the perimeter of the inner surface).Kinoshita is silent regarding the shape of the inner surface corresponding to the circuit board. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the inner surface to correspond to the circuit board, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431.Regarding Claim 8:Kinoshita as modified by Yano discloses the electric compressor, wherein a sealing member seating portion (as modified above in the rejection of claim 1, the sealing member would be formed between the sidewall of the cover and the sidewall of the inverter housing, as seen in Yano’s Figure 3) is integrally formed on an outer peripheral surface of the side wall (as seen in Kinoshita’s Figure 3, the side wall is integrated with a bottom of the wall that would form the sealing member mounting portion), and wherein a sealing member (sealing member added in the rejection of claim 1) is mounted on the sealing member seating portion (in the manner shown in Yano’s Figure 3).Regarding Claim 9:Kinoshita as modified by Yano discloses the electric compressor, wherein the second resin portion (151) is formed at a position corresponding to the sealing member seating portion (as seen in Kinoshita’s Figure 3, the outer side wall of the second resin portion 151 emanates from the bottom sealing member seating portion).Regarding Claim 10:Kinoshita as modified by Yano discloses the electric compressor, wherein the second resin portion (151) is formed on opposite sides of the sealing member seating portion and the sealing member (the sealing member seating portion and the sealing member form a generally annular type shape as seen in Kinoshita’s Figure 2, wherein the entire outer periphery of the sealing member seating portion depicted as 152 in Figure 3 is covered by the second resin portion 151 and so two arbitrary opposite sides of these elements are formed with the second resin portion) with the metal plate placed therebetween (as seen in Figure 3) and covers the plurality of through holes (as evident from Figures 2-4).Regarding Claim 16:Kinoshita as modified by Yano fails to disclose a central plate portion that is thicker than other portions of the metal plate. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the metal plate to have a thicker central portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (herein Kinoshita) (US 2016/0281698) in view of Yano et al. (herein Yano) (US 2017/0100984) in further view of Yusuke Kinoshita et al. (herein Yusuke) (US 2015/0054365).Regarding Claim 11:Kinoshita as modified by Yano is silent regarding any ribs.Yusuke discloses a substantially similar electric compressor (see alternate rejection of claim 1 above) wherein ribs (25k) protruding toward a circuit board (20a) are formed on a first resin portion (25k, see Figure 2). These ribs protrude between various electric components (20b, 20c) and thus limit deformation of the cover (13) cause by heat, thereby improving its durability (see paragraph [0044]). Hence, based on Yusuke’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included ribs protruding towards the circuit board on Kinoshita’s first resin portion (170) such that they protruded between the electric components on the circuit board (as taught by Yusuke), since doing so limit deformation of the cover caused by heat, thereby improving its durability (see Yusuke’s paragraph [0044]). Regarding Claim 12:Kinoshita as modified by Yano and Yusuke discloses the electric compressor, the ribs protrude to a height less than the side wall (the added ribs would protrude the heights similar to that shown in Yusuke’s Figure. Since Kinoshita’s side wall at 152 goes to the bottom of the cover, this would protrude more than the height of the ribs).Regarding Claim 15:Kinoshita as modified by Yano and Yusuke discloses the electric compressor, wherein the added ribs (described by Yusuke) appear to have a uniform height (as seen in Yusuke’s Figure 2 all ribs 25k appear to have the same height).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the heights of the ribs change the height of a middle rib to be lower than the height of the other ribs (per claim 15), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).The ribs were already designed to avoid the components on the circuit board (as shown in Yusuke’s Figure 2) so differing the heights of some ribs would still accomplish this function and potentially also increase/decrease the axial distance between these components and the ribs.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (herein Kinoshita) (US 2016/0281698) in view of Yoshida et al. (herein Yoshida) (US 2013/0034975). Kinoshita fails to disclose that the metal plate has a plurality of flanges. However, in Figures 1A-1B, Yoshida discloses a similar electric compressor (10), wherein an inverter cover (21) comprises a metal plate (22) with a plurality of flanges (22d). Each flange (22d) comprises a respective fastening hole (221d) to receive a fastening bolt (28) that allows the metal plate to be coupled to another flange (12f). Hence, based on Yoshida’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged Kinoshita’s existing fastening holes (165) to radially extending flanges with respective fastening holes (as taught by Yoshida) that would allow for bolts to join to similarly formed flanges in Kinoshita’s housing (110), since doing so would reduce the number of moisture ingression points in to the inverter chamber, thereby protecting the electronic components of the inverter. After said modification was made, the radial extent of each added flange could be altered to extend beyond the radial extend of each of the first and second resin portions since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection being used in the current office action.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 citing the teachings of Kinoshita (US 2016/0281698), the applicant argued in the remarks filed on 9/11/2025 (page 11, last paragraph) that the through hole (155) is for a head bolt and therefore is different from the claimed through holes. Firstly, the examiner did not cite through hole denoted as 155 but instead cited multiple through holes denoted as 163, 164 and 165. In paragraph [0044] Kinoshita states: “Positions where movement of the resin portion 170 is restricted by the frame portion 160 when the resin portion 170 thermally expands in accordance with the present embodiment are the circumference of the first protruding portion 163, the circumference of the second protruding portion 164, the inside of the three counterbored portions 165,--.” This clearly indicates that the first resin portion (170) flows into these holes and that the two resin portions are integrally connected as clearly seen in Figure 3. Hence, this argument is not persuasive.
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.
See appended PTO-892 for relevant prior art related to electric compressors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746