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 .
Preliminary Formalities
Applicant has addressed the “REPLY TO ELECTION/RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT” to the “Customer Service Window” in the “Randolph Building” of the USPTO (see first page of Reply filed 03/24/2026).
Applicant should note that the address used is incorrect; the Customer Service Window was relocated effective April 30, 2024. See website below for further information.https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2024/relocation-patent-customer-service-window-effective-april-30
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 03/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Note that in their Remarks, Applicant explicitly states the election of “Group I, claims 1-18, drawn to a compressor motor having a rotor with a plurality of protrusions with multiple side surfaces” is made “without traverse” (emphasis added). However, in the immediately ensuing paragraph, Applicant asserts that “the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden”—i.e., Applicant appears to be actively traversing the restriction requirement.
Insofar as Applicant’s Representative appears to not understand what election with or without traverse actually means, and/or if Applicant themselves are unsure regarding what choice they had wanted to make, the following is noted in order to address any potential concerns.
To the extent that Applicant may be traversing on the ground(s) that “the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden,” it is respectfully noted that this is not found persuasive. Specifically, and as previously indicated in the Restriction requirement mailed 02/25/2026, Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because the inventions listed are independent or distinct for the reasons given and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Finally, Applicant has failed to submit any evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the two inventions to be obvious variants of one another, or clearly admit on the record that this is the case.
For at least the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive.
The requirement has been reviewed, is still deemed proper, and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made explicitly “without traverse” in the reply filed on 03/24/2026.
Claims 1-18 are therefore under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A certified copy of KR 10-2023-0090543, filed 12 July 2023, has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 02/24/2025 and 05/27/2025 both fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, no legible copy of Foreign Documents “Korean Office Action” and “Korean Notice of Allowance” was provided in the application. As such, these documents were not considered.
N.B. – Two foreign language documents (3 pages and 6 pages in length, respectively) have been submitted, but they are written entirely in a foreign language. They are not labeled with any English-language identification nor do they contain any information in English which would allow the Office to understand what is written or their relevance to the instant application. If Applicant wishes these documents to be considered, it is recommended to submit an English-language translation of each.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriately descriptive titles may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. (MPEP § 606.01).
N.B. – As “compressor motor[s]” and “compressor[s]” including “compressor motor” are well known in the art, it is respectfully suggested that Applicant include one or more features of their inventive “compressor motor” and “compressor” which distinguish such from the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 7, each element and/or step should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m).
N.B. – In instances where a listed element and/or step is further limited to comprise a plurality of sub-elements or sub-steps (as in the claim 1 limitation “wherein each magnet includes […]”), each of those should also be separated by a line indentation.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “is disposed, between” should be —is disposed[[,]] between—.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support
thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
Claim 1: “a fixing member” includes the nonce term “member” and may be interpreted as, e.g., —a means for fixing—.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 5-6, the limitation “a plurality of magnets disposed on a radially outer surface of the rotor core and spaced apart in a circumferential direction” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear from what other element(s) the “magnets” are “spaced apart […]”.
Regarding claim 1, line 10, the limitation “and an outer peripheral surface that connects […]” is vague and indefinite. The phrase appears to be missing a verb and/or linking phrase—i.e., the claim fails to make clear what is being done with/to and/or what comprises “an outer peripheral surface”.
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are recited without sufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
“the magnet” (line 14);
“the inner surface of the magnet” (lines 15-16);
“the seating groove” (line 16);
“the side surface of the magnet” (lines 16-17; ll. 17-18);
“the protrusion” (line 17; ll. 18-19);
“the outer peripheral surface of the protrusion” (line 20).
Regarding claim 1, lines 19-20, the limitation “a fixing member is disposed in at least a partial area radially outward of the outer peripheral surface of the protrusion” is vague and indefinite. In addition to the ambiguities created by lack of clear antecedent basis for the terms “the outer peripheral surface of the protrusion” and “the protrusion” (see discussion above), the claim fails to make clear what “at least a partial area” may comprise—isn’t a “partial area” simply an “area”? It is unclear what the term “partial” is intended to describe and/or how it is intended to define the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the following limitations are recited without sufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
“the side surface of the protrusion”;
“the protrusion”.
Regarding claim 3, the following limitations are recited without sufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
“the side surface of the magnet and the protrusion”;
“the magnet”;
“the protrusion”.
Regarding claim 4, the following limitations are recited without sufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
“the protrusion” (multiple instances);
“the side surfaces of the protrusion”;
“the magnet” (multiple instances);
“the side surface of the magnet”;
“the side surface of the protrusion and the seating groove”;
“the inner surface of the magnet”;
“the side surfaces of the magnet”.
Regarding claim 4, lines 1-3, the limitation “wherein a distance between the side surfaces of the protrusion gradually decreases as the protrusion extends radially inward from an area contacting the side surface of the magnet at the one point” is vague and indefinite. In addition to the antecedent basis issues noted above, the following issues are also present.
First, the phrase “wherein a distance between the side surfaces of the protrusion gradually decreases as the protrusion extends radially inward from […]” is generally narrative and does not clearly set forth the structural relationships between the various elements. Note, too, that the term “gradually” is a relative term and does not clearly define how the “distance” may “decrease[]”.
Second, the phrase “an area contacting the side surface of the magnet at the one point” is also generally narrative and unclear. The claim fails to make clear what an “area contacting the side surface […]” may comprise.
Regarding claims 5-18, numerous limitations are recited without either sufficient or clear antecedent basis, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Applicant should use the guidance provided above regarding claims 1-4 to thoroughly review and revise claims 5-18 accordingly. Note that in instances where a “plurality” of elements has been introduced (such as “a plurality of magnets,” “a plurality of protrusions,” etc.), the claims should make clear to which one(s) of the “plurality” of elements reference is intended to be made. If the recited limitations are intended to apply to all of the elements in the “plurality” of elements, the claim language should be amended to clearly reflect this.
Regarding claims 2-18, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
For the purpose of expediting prosecution, prior art will be applied in reference to the claims as best understood by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carli et al. (EP 1050097 B1, hereinafter “Carli”).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Carli discloses a compressor motor for a compressor, the compressor motor comprising:
a stator (stator, implicit for motor; see, e.g., ¶ 1); and
a rotor (rotor, not separately labeled; see, e.g., Fig. 1, ¶¶ 12-14) disposed inside of the stator and configured to be coupled to a shaft (shaft, not separately labeled; see, e.g., ¶ 13),
wherein the rotor includes a rotor core (rotor core 1) comprising a plurality of axially stacked magnetic steel plates (cylindrical stack of magnetic laminations forming cylindrical rotor core 1; see, e.g., ¶ 13) and a plurality of magnets (magnets 5, 6, 7) disposed on a radially outer surface of the rotor core and spaced apart in a circumferential direction (see, e.g., Fig. 1),
wherein the rotor core further includes a plurality of seating grooves (grooves 14-19 between ribs 2-4) in which the plurality of magnets is respectively seated, and a plurality of protrusions (longitudinal prismatic ribs 2-4) that protrudes radially outward between the plurality of seating grooves (see, e.g., Figs. 1, 2),
wherein each protrusion (ribs 2, 3, 4) includes first and second side surfaces that extend radially outward and an outer peripheral surface that connects the first and second side surfaces in the circumferential direction (see Fig. 2),
wherein each magnet (magnets 5, 6, 7) includes four surfaces that extend axially, the four surfaces including an inner surface that faces radially inward, an outer surface that is positioned opposite to the inner surface, and first and second side surfaces that connect the inner surface and the outer surface (see Fig. 2),
wherein the magnet (magnets 5, 6, 7) slides axially between adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions (ribs 2, 3, 4), the inner surface of the magnet is seated in the seating groove, and at least a portion of the side surface of the magnet contacts a side surface of the protrusion (see Fig. 2), and
wherein the side surface of the magnet (magnets 5, 6, 7) extends and protrudes further radially outward (see Fig. 2) than the side surface of the protrusion (ribs 2, 3, 4), and a fixing member (e.g., spring clips 11, 12, 13) is disposed in at least a partial area radially outward of the outer peripheral surface of the protrusion (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Carli further discloses that the fixing member (clips 11, 12, 13) is disposed between side surfaces of adjacent magnets (magnets 5, 6, 7) of the plurality of magnets, radially further outward than the side surface of the protrusion (ribs 2, 3, 4; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Carli further discloses that the outer peripheral surface of the protrusion (ribs 2, 3, 4) is radially outwardly convex (see Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office Action, that support be shown for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, to specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. 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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights