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 . Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2024,03/28/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested: “COMPRESSOR WITH MOTOR HAVING STATOR WITH RECESSES FOR REFRIGERANT FLOW AND STATOR AND ROTOR SHEETS STACKING FACTORS”
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.
Claim 15 and 16 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.
Claim 15 recites “a compressor” as a first recitation, it is confusing if it is the previously recited in claim 1, clarification is needed. Examiner will assume it is previously recited limitation in claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected based on dependency from claim 15.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-3,5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US PG Pub 20180358846 hereinafter “Baba” in view of Nigo (WIPO PCT Pub WO 2020021692 hereinafter “Nigo”, will use Equivalent US PG Pub 20210203196 as English Translation “Nigo”).
Re-claim 1, Baba discloses a motor (1) used in a compressor (50), the motor (1) comprising: a rotor (3) comprising a rotor core (10) having an annular shape (see fig.1) about an axis (axis of shaft length of 58), the rotor comprising a permanent magnet (11) attached to the rotor core (10, fig.1) and formed of electromagnetic steel sheets (10a,plates made of iron and silicon, soft magnetic material, P[0007] rotor stack is steel) stacked in a direction of the axis (see fig.2); and a stator (2) fixed to an inner side of a shell (see fig.5, inside 50) of the compressor (1), and comprising a stator core (4) surrounding the rotor core (10) and formed of electromagnetic steel sheets (claim 6, stator sheet made of steel sheets) stacked in the direction of the axis (see fig.2), the stator (2) comprising a winding (5) wound on the stator core (4) and formed of an aluminum wire (P[0024], coil made of aluminum wire), wherein the stator core (4) has a recess at an outer periphery (see fig.1) thereof, the recess (annotated fig.1) forming a passage (see fig.1, recess forms a passage) between the outer periphery of the stator core (4) and an inner peripheral surface of the shell (the stator is inside the compressor shell, therefore shell is around stator, and recess is between them), wherein a stacking factor O1 (d1 in fig.2, shows stacking factor) of the electromagnetic steel sheets (4a) of the stator core (4) and a stacking factor O2 (d2, in fig.2) of the electromagnetic steel sheets of the rotor core (10a, 10) satisfy: O1<O2 (d1 is less than d2).
Baba fails to explicitly teaches that the recess forming a refrigerant passage between the outer periphery of the stator core and an inner peripheral surface of the shell, wherein refrigerant flows through the recess, flows through a clearance between the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core, and passes through the winding.
However, Nigo teaches that the recess (19) forming a refrigerant passage (see P[0053, 19 serves as refrigerant flow path) between the outer periphery of the stator core (10) and an inner peripheral surface of the shell (annotated fig.20), wherein refrigerant flows (arrows in fig.8) through the recess (19), flows through a clearance (L1) between the electromagnetic steel sheets (10,10a,10b) of the stator core (10), and passes through the winding (when refrigerant, air or oils flows it would get into clearances which would also let it pass through the windings 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to show the recess and winding of Bab modified where the recess forming a refrigerant passage between the outer periphery of the stator core and an inner peripheral surface of the shell, wherein refrigerant flows through the recess, flows through a clearance between the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core, and passes through the winding as suggested by Nigo which provides cooling for the device increasing motor efficiency and reducing eddy current loss (Nigo, P[0009-0008]).
PNG
media_image1.png
642
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
607
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
638
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
517
418
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
344
531
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
755
957
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein a thickness T1 (d1) of each of the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core (4a) and a thickness T2 (d2) of each of the electromagnetic steel sheets of the rotor core (10a) satisfy: T1<T2 (d1 is less than d2).
Re-claim 3, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein a thickness T1 of each of the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core and a thickness T2 of each of the electromagnetic steel sheets of the rotor core satisfy: T1<T2<4 x T1 (annotated fig.2, shows T2 bigger than T1, but less than 4 stack of T1).
Re-claim 5, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1 above.
Baba fails to explicitly teach wherein a gap L1 between the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core and a gap L2 between the electromagnetic steel sheets of the rotor core satisfy: L1>L2.
However, Nigo teaches a gap L1 (L1, or L2) between the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core (see fig.14) and a gap L2 (L0) between the electromagnetic steel sheets of the rotor core satisfy: L1>L2 (L0<L1, see 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Baba wherein gap L1 between the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core and a gap L2 between the electromagnetic steel sheets of the rotor core satisfy: L1>L2 as suggested by Nigo which suppresses eddy current, increasing motor efficiency and reducing eddy current loss (Nigo, P[0010,0011]).
Re-claim 6, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1.
Baba as modified by Nigo discloses wherein when a sinusoidal change in magnetic flux density is induced at a frequency of 50 Hz with a maximum magnetic flux density of 1.5 T in an Epstein test (Epstein Test in Intrinsic Evidence A “A method for defining the mean path length of the Epstein Frame”, a standard test measure core losses, iron losses in electrical steel sheets), an iron loss density W1 per a unit weight of the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core and an iron loss density W2 per a unit weight of the electromagnetic steel sheets of the rotor core satisfy: W1<W2 (P[0005], an iron loss distribution in which the iron loss of the stator core is larger than the iron loss of the rotor core, P[0006], An iron loss results from a loss caused by an eddy current flowing through an electromagnetic steel plate, that is, an eddy current loss. The eddy current loss is smaller as the sheet thickness of the electromagnetic steel plate is smaller. Therefore, it is effective to make the electromagnetic steel plate thin in order to reduce the iron loss.”.
PNG
media_image7.png
233
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 7, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1 above.
Baba as modified discloses a silicon content S1 in the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core and a silicon content S2 in the electromagnetic steel sheets of the rotor core satisfy: S1>S2 (see P[0041], the silicon content rate of the first soft magnetic material that is a material of the plate 4 a is set to be larger than that of the second soft magnetic material that is a material of the plate 10 a.).
Re-claim 8, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein the stator core (2) has a through hole (where rotor is located or where winding is located through hole) formed from one end to the other end of the stator core in a direction of the axis (direction of shaft).
Re-claim 9, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 8, wherein the stator core (2) comprises a yoke (see fig.1, showing annular shape of 3) having an annular shape (see fig.1) about the axis, and a tooth (4) extending from the yoke toward the axis (shaft axis 12), and wherein the through hole (annotated fig.1) is formed in the yoke (3, see fig.1).
Re-claim 10, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 8, wherein the winding (5) is wound on the stator core (7).
Baba as modified fails to explicitly teach the winding (5) is wound on the stator core (7) via an insulating portion, and wherein the through hole is exposed at an end face of the stator core in a direction of the axis and is not covered with the insulating portion.
However, Nigo teaches the winding (4) is wound on the stator core (12) via an insulating portion (2), and wherein the through hole (inside stator) is exposed at an end face (130) of the stator core in a direction of the axis (up and down fig.7a) and is not covered with the insulating portion (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Baba wherein the winding (5) is wound on the stator core (7) via an insulating portion, and wherein the through hole is exposed at an end face of the stator core in a direction of the axis and is not covered with the insulating portion as suggested by Nigo to provide further insulation and suppresses eddy current, increasing motor efficiency and reducing eddy current loss (Nigo, P[0010,0011]).
Re-claim 11, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 9, wherein coils (5) of different layers of the winding intersect each other (annotated zoomed figure) at an end of the tooth in the direction of the axis (see fig.5).
Re-claim 12, Baba a modified discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein the stator core (2) comprises a yoke (annotated fig.1) having an annular shape about the axis (see fig.1), and a tooth (7) extending from the yoke toward the axis, and wherein the winding (5) is wound around the tooth (7) by salient pole (pole 7) concentrated winding (the winding is concentrated).
Re-claim 13, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 12, wherein the winding (5) is wound around the tooth (7) by regular winding (they winding is regular).
Re-claim 14, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein the stator core (4) has a plurality of split cores see (fig.1, cores 7) combined in an annular shape (see fig.1).
Re-claim 15, Baba as modified discloses the compressor (100) comprising: the motor (fig.5) according to claim 1; and a compression mechanism (610) driven by the motor (100).
Re-claim 16, Baba as modified discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus (1) comprising: the compressor according to claim 15.
Baba fails to explicitly teach the details of a compressor which a condenser, a decompressor, and an evaporator.
However, Nigo teaches a condenser (4), a decompressor (403), and an evaporator (404).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the compressor of Baba showing parts teach the details of a compressor which a condenser, a decompressor, and an evaporator as taught by Nigo to provide air conditioner (Nigo, P[0067]).
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba in view of Nigo and in further view of Okazaki (WIPO PCT Pub WO 2020110191 hereinafter “Okazaki”, will use Equivalent US PG Pub 20220037942 as English Translation “Okazaki”).
Re-claim 4, Baba as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein the rotor core (10) has a magnet insertion hole (13) in which the permanent magnet (11) is disposed.
Baba as modified fails to explicitly discloses a bridge located between the magnet insertion hole and the rotor core, wherein the bridge has a width W in a radial direction about the axis, and wherein the width W of the bridge and the thickness T1 of each of the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core satisfy: W<T1.
However, Okazaki teaches a bridge (27) located between the magnet insertion hole (22b) and the rotor core (2), wherein the bridge has a width W (W3) in a radial direction about the axis, and wherein the width W of the bridge and the thickness T1 (d1) of each of the electromagnetic steel sheets of the stator core satisfy: W<T1 (this is a result effective variable, as indicated by P[0059], that different thicknesses can be chosen for W3 and W4, therefore it would be obvious to change the width or thickness of the bridge, see, eMPEP 2144.05, 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024], OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range), Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The patent claim at issue was directed to a weight plate having 3 elongated openings that served as handles for transporting the weight plate. Multiple prior art patents each disclosed weight plates having 1, 2 or 4 elongated openings. 392 F.3d at 1319, 73 USPQ2d at 1226. The court stated that the claimed weight plate having 3 elongated openings fell within the “range” of the prior art and was thus presumed obvious. 392 F.3d at 1322, 73 USPQ2d at 1228. The court further stated that the “range” disclosed in multiple prior art patents is “a distinction without a difference” from previous range cases which involved a range disclosed in a single patent since the “prior art suggested that a larger number of elongated grips in the weight plates was beneficial… thus plainly suggesting that one skilled in the art look to the range appearing in the prior art.” Id, in this case multiple prior art show the Thickness T1 an the Width of the bridge and shoes that they can be modified or changed, therefore is taught by the combination., furthermore, it is an A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation Generally, Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.”), therefore it would be obvious to change the dimensions of Baba as shown and suggested by Okazaki which is known and is obvious to change/try as a design change, or change in form, proportion as discussed above.
PNG
media_image8.png
418
866
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
233
367
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834