DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 31 December 2025. Claims 21, 23 – 27 and 31 – 39 are pending and currently being examined.
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 .
Specification
The previously made objections to the specification are hereby withdrawn in view of suitable amendments to the claims submitted with applicant’s response.
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 32 – 33 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.
In Re Claim 32, this claims recites the limitation “the upstream internal flow path side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --an upstream internal flow path side-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 32, this claims recites the limitation “the downstream internal flow path side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --a downstream internal flow path side-- will be assumed instead.
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.
Claim(s) 21 – 25, 31, 32, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over il (Korean Patent KR 20110072323 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS of 1/19/2024, Machine Translation provided by the examiner) in view of Iritani (US Patent 6,997,687 B2) and as evidenced by Kim (European Patent EP 3734803 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of il
In Re Claim 21, il discloses an electric compressor (Figure 2 embodiment; Translation: Page 1, Lines 6 – 8) comprising: a motor (12a, 12b) configured to generate power (Translation, Page 2 Lines 15 – 21); a compression mechanism (Translation, Page 2 Lines 7 – 12) configured to receive the power from the motor and compress a refrigerant (Translation, Page 1 Line 12); and an inverter configured to control the motor (Translation, Page 1 Lines 9 - 10), wherein a housing (10) receiving the motor and the inverter further comprises a partition wall (16) that divides a motor receiving space (10’) receiving the motor and an inverter receiving space (14) receiving the inverter (Translation, Page 2 Lines 28 – 30), and a suction port (11) guiding the refrigerant to the motor receiving space (Translation, Page 2 Lines 14 – 15), and wherein the partition wall (16) further comprises a rib (either 19 or 20 or both) that protrudes from a surface (of 16) facing the motor receiving space (10’) (Translation, Page 2 Lines 38 – 42); wherein a part of the refrigerant that has flowed from the suction port (11) to the motor receiving space (10’) flows in a circumferential direction (see flow arrows in Figure 2 adjacent to label 16) of the motor receiving space (10’), wherein the rib comprises a first rib (19) extending in a radial direction of the motor receiving space (10’), and an internal flow path (13; Figure 1; Translation Page 2, Lines 21 – 23) that is formed on an inner peripheral surface of an annular wall (see where label 10’ is in Figure 2; also see annotated figure above), is spaced apart from the outer peripheral surface of the motor (12a, 12b), and extends toward the compression mechanism (which is located above the top portion of Figure 1).
The il reference does not disclose that the internal flow path is formed “concavely” on an inner peripheral surface of the annular wall, and the il reference is silent with regards to the first, second and third internal flow paths.
PNG
media_image2.png
616
909
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 of Iritani
However, Figure 7 of Iritani discloses a housing (4) comprising an annular wall that supports an annular peripheral surface of the motor (3) and an internal flow path (there are several options: 17, 18, 20) formed concavely on an inner peripheral surface of the annular wall (although the depicted embodiments do not disclose this, Column 7, Lines 16 – 18 teaches that the grooves can optionally be formed on the annular wall) and spaced apart from the outer peripheral surface of the motor (3), wherein there are a plurality of internal flow paths (17, 18, 20), wherein the plurality of internal flow paths (17, 18, 20) arranged in the circumferential direction of the motor receiving space (internal cylindrical space of 4), and further comprises a first internal flow path (see annotated figure above adjacent label 18 to the left), a second internal flow path (see annotated figure above adjacent another label 18 to the right) and a third internal flow path (see annotated figure above adjacent label 20), and wherein a flow cross-sectional area of the third internal flow path (20) is larger than a flow cross-sectional area of the first internal flow path (18 to the left) and a flow cross-sectional area of the second internal flow path (18 to the right) (Figure 7; Column 4, Lines 48 – 52; Column 5, Lines 1 – 11; Column 6, Lines 29 – 34; Column 7, Lines 13 – 18).
PNG
media_image3.png
731
1107
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of il and Figure 7 of Iritani showing the modification
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the annular wall of il such that it supports an outer peripheral surface of the motor and forms a plurality of flow paths concavely on an inner peripheral surface of the annular wall such that a flow cross-sectional area of the third internal flow path is larger than a flow cross-sectional area of the first internal flow path and a flow cross-sectional area of the second internal flow path as taught by Iritani for the purpose of increasing the endothermic capacity of the cooling passages in regions where heat generation is the most, thereby avoiding the problem of a localized temperature rise in part of the electric motor portion (Column 2, Lines 46 – 51; Examiner noting that Iritani establishes cross-sectional area as a result effective variable because it varies and this variability affects the endothermic capacity of the flow path, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); and because it is known in the art as evidenced by Kim, to provide a plurality of internal glow paths (“d1” between adjacent labels 1170; Figure 8), one downstream of another in an extension direction of the suction port (120; Figure 13) – therefore the results of substituting a single internal flow path (of il) with a plurality of internal flow paths (Iritani) are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In the modified apparatus (see annotated figure above showing the modification), the first internal flow path of Iritani would be disposed adjacent to an outlet side of the suction port of il, a second internal flow path of Iritani would be disposed further downstream than the first internal flow path of Iritani, and the third internal flow path of Iritani would be disposed further downstream than the second internal flow path of Iritani based on a frame of reference in the circumferential direction of the motor receiving space located in an extension direction of the suction port of il.
In Re Claim 23, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 21, and il discloses that there are a plurality (three) of first ribs (19), and wherein the plurality of first ribs (19) is arranged in the circumferential direction of the motor receiving space (Figure 2 depicts that the three ribs 19 are distributed uniformly in the circumferential direction in 10’).
In Re Claim 24, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 21, and il discloses that the partition wall (16) further comprises an annular boss portion (17) protruding from the surface facing the motor receiving space (10’) of the partition wall (16) such that a bearing (“B”) that supports a rotary shaft (50) of the motor is inserted (Figure 2; Translation, Page 2 Line 36), and wherein the plurality of first ribs (19) extends from the boss portion (17).
In Re Claim 25, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 21, and il discloses that the housing (10) further comprises an annular wall (this wall is not specifically labeled, it is the wall where the label 10’ is located in Figure 2) that extends from an outer periphery of the partition wall (16), and wherein some of the plurality of first ribs (19) extend from the boss portion (17; if this is not clear from Figure 2, see Figure 4) to the annular wall (Figure 2; Translation, Page 2 Lines 40 – 41).
In Re Claim 31, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 21, and il further discloses a second rib (20) which extends in the circumferential direction of the motor receiving space (Translation, Page 2, Lines 42 – 44).
In Re Claim 32, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 31, and in the modified apparatus, the second rib (20) of il would extends from an upstream internal flow path side (one of the internal flow paths of Iritani) to a downstream internal flow path side (another of the internal flow paths of Iritani).
In Re Claim 34, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 31, and il further discloses that a protrusion height of the second rib (20) is formed greater than a protrusion height of the first rib (19) as shown in Figure 3.
In Re Claim 35, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 31, and il further discloses that there is a plurality of second ribs (there are 9 depicted in Figure 2 – three groups of 3), and wherein the plurality of second ribs is arranged in the radial direction of the motor receiving space as depicted.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over il (Korean Patent KR 20110072323 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS of 1/19/2024, Machine Translation provided by the examiner) in view of Iritani (US Patent 6,997,687 B2) and as evidenced by Kim (European Patent EP 3734803 A1) and further in view of Toda (US Patent US 7387503 B2).
In Re Claims 26 and 27, il, Iritani and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 23, but they do not disclose that some of the first ribs have different lengths and an average length as claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
629
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Toda
However, Figure 1 of Toda discloses ribs (10; Column 2, Lines 5 – 6), some of which have different lengths. With regards to the average length limitation, it is only a matter of assigning the long ribs from the first portion and the short ribs from the second portion as the claimed plurality of ribs in the annotated Figure 1 reproduced above. So Toda teaches that the average length of the first portion of the ribs (longer ribs 10) below a horizontal plane through a center of gravity (see dashed line labeled “center of motor receiving space”) is greater than the average length of the second portion of the ribs (shorter ribs 10) above the horizontal plane (see dashed line labeled “center of motor receiving space”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to make some of the ribs of il in the apparatus of il / Iritani / Kim to be different lengths as taught by Toda such that the average length of the first portion of the ribs in the direction of gravity is greater than the average length of the second portion of the ribs opposite to the direction of gravity because 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). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 33 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over il (Korean Patent KR 20110072323 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS of 1/19/2024, Machine Translation provided by the examiner) in view of Iritani (US Patent 6,997,687 B2) and as evidenced by Kim (European Patent EP 3734803 A1) and further in view of Breeze (PG Pub US 20190204010 A1).
In Re Claim 33, il, Iritani and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 32, but they do not disclose that a distance from a center of the motor receiving space to the second rib decreases as claimed, because in il, the distance appears to be constant from one end of the second rib to the other end of the second rib.
However, Figure 5 of Breeze discloses a plurality of second ribs (158; paragraph [0049]), the cross sectional area of the flow between adjacent ribs increases from the inlet (adjacent 162) to the outlet (adjacent 164) as explained in paragraph [0032]: “ or stated another way the flow area A5 is greater than the flow area A4”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the spacing between adjacent ribs (20) of il in the device of il / Iritani / Kim such that the cross sectional area of the flow between adjacent ribs at the trailing edge of the ribs is larger than the cross sectional area of the flow between the adjacent ribs at the trailing edge of the ribs as taught by Breeze for the purpose of reducing flow velocities and avoiding pressure losses (paragraph [0005] of Breeze). In the modified apparatus, one skilled in the art would appreciate that the reduced spacing at the leading edges as compared to the trailing edges implies a decrease in the claimed distance from one end of the second rib to the other end of the second rib in the circumferential direction of the motor receiving space. Note that Breeze’s disclosure in paragraph [0004]: “One problem with introducing a heat exchanger into a gas turbine engine flowpath is that high velocities within the heat exchanger generate high pressure losses. If pressure losses are sufficiently high, they can exceed system efficiency gains provided by the heat exchanger, resulting in a net reduction in system efficiency” is relevant to the insufficient heat exchange/cooling problem that applicant is trying to solve, and is therefore analogous art.
PNG
media_image5.png
610
760
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Li
In Re Claim 36, il, Iritani and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 35, but they do not disclose different spaced distances (the ribs 20 are uniformly spaced, i.e. they have the same spacing at a position adjacent to the suction port and at a position further away from the suction port than the position adjacent to the suction port.
However, Figure 2 of Breeze discloses a plurality of second ribs (58; paragraph [0031]), the cross sectional area of the flow between adjacent ribs decreases from the inlet (A5 adjacent 56) to the outlet (adjacent 50) (also see paragraph [0032]: “ or stated another way the flow area A5 is greater than the flow area A4)”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the spacing between adjacent ribs (20) of il in the device of il / Iritani / Kim such that the cross sectional area of the flow between adjacent ribs at the leading edge of the ribs (adjacent to suction port) is larger than the cross sectional area of the flow between the adjacent ribs at the trailing edge of the ribs (away from the suction port) as taught by Breeze for the purpose of avoiding pressure losses (paragraph [0005] of Breeze). In the modified apparatus, one skilled in the art would appreciate that the different cross sectional areas implies different spacings. Note that Breeze’s disclosure in paragraph [0004]: “One problem with introducing a heat exchanger into a gas turbine engine flowpath is that high velocities within the heat exchanger generate high pressure losses. If pressure losses are sufficiently high, they can exceed system efficiency gains provided by the heat exchanger, resulting in a net reduction in system efficiency” is relevant to the insufficient heat exchange/cooling problem that applicant is trying to solve, and is therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 37 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over il (Korean Patent KR 20110072323 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS of 1/19/2024, Machine Translation provided by the examiner) in view of Iritani (US Patent 6,997,687 B2) and as evidenced by Kim (European Patent EP 3734803 A1) and further in view of Zaccardi (PG Pub US 20190338661 A1).
In Re Claims 37 and 38, il, Iritani and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 35, but they do not disclose that circumferential length of the centripetal rib is greater than a circumferential length of the centrifugal rib, and they do not disclose non overlapping trailing edges in the radial direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
656
1010
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 4 of Zaccardi
However, Figure 4 of Zaccardi discloses a centripetal rib and a centrifugal rib (see annotated figure above, paragraph [0070] discloses that they perform heat exchanging function, in essence they perform the same function as cooling fins 80), wherein a circumferential length of the centripetal rib is greater than a circumferential length of the centrifugal rib, and wherein a leading edge of the centripetal rib is formed to overlap a leading edge of the centripetal rib in the radial direction, and wherein a trailing edge of the centripetal rib is formed in such a manner as not to overlap a trailing edge of the centripetal rib in the radial direction (paragraph [0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the centripetal rib and centrifugal rib (20) of il in the apparatus of il / Iritani / Kim such that the circumferential length of the centripetal rib is greater than a circumferential length of the centrifugal rib, and the trailing edges do not overlap in the radial direction as taught by Zaccardi for the purpose of improving convective heat exchanges (paragraph [0070] of Zaccardi). Note also that the Figure 9 embodiment of Zaccardi discloses a similar configuration to the ribs of il, therefore the results of the modification are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B). Note also that Zaccardi’s paragraph [0070] disclosure: “to improve convective heat exchanges” is relevant to the insufficient heat exchange/cooling problem that applicant is trying to solve, and is therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over il (Korean Patent KR 20110072323 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS of 1/19/2024, Machine Translation provided by the examiner) in view of Iritani (US Patent 6,997,687 B2) and as evidenced by Kim (European Patent EP 3734803 A1) and further in view of Lee (PG Pub US 20170292517 A1).
In Re Claim 39, il, Iritani and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 21, but it does not disclose switching elements come into contact with the partition wall.
However, Lee discloses an inverter (162) which further comprises a plurality of switching elements (166), wherein at least some of the plurality of elements come into contact with the partition wall (113) (paragraph [0096]; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the inverter of il in the apparatus of il / Iritani / Kim such that the switching elements contact the partition wall as taught by Lee because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed switching elements and location of il with the specifically disclosed switching elements and location of Lee, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Page 16 of Applicant’s Response that “However, since the suction port 6 of IRITANI is formed in the axial direction of the motor at the center of the motor, the internal flow paths 17, 18 and 20 are not formed along the direction in which the suction port 6 extends, and the internal flow paths 17, 18 and 20 are not distinguished as being located upstream or downstream”.
Examiner’s Response: il (KR 2011072323 A) discloses that internal flow path (13, Figure 1) is formed along the direction in which the suction port (11) extends, and is located downstream from the suction port (11). Note that the rejection was made over a combination of il (KR 2011072323 A) and IRRITANI, and not just based on IRRITANI alone. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746