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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the applicants' election filed on 03/03/2025.
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.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicants’ election with traverse of the species I (Figs. 1-9) and Subspecies I (Figs. 1A-7B), claims 1-12 and 18-20 being readable thereon, in the reply filed on 03/03/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the Species I and Species II identified by the Examiner do share an inventive concept and, thus, the Species should be examined together and not restricted”. This is not found persuasive because the claims recite several limitations which are mutually exclusive to the different species as noted by the examiner in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 01/02/2025. Specifically, the actuating mechanism being a radial-flux motor (7’) contained in Fig. 10 (see page 19, para. [0076] of the instant application) is not contained in Figs. 1-9. Accordingly, the search required for any one of the species would not be required for the remaining species. It is additionally pointed out that, contrary to what applicant(s) suggest(s), the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
- Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/03/225.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 06/28/2024. These drawings are approved.
Specification
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
5. 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.
6. 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: “an actuating mechanism” recited in claims 1 and 13.
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 § 102
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.
7. Claims 1-4, 7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doepker et al. (Doepker) (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0223849A1 - provided with the IDS filed on 06/28/2024 by the applicants).
Regarding claim 1, as shown in Fig. 1-2, Doepker discloses a scroll compressor comprising: a compressor shell 24; a frame installed in the compressor shell; a scroll assembly comprising: a first scroll located in the compressor shell; and a second scroll located in the compressor shell and being co-rotatable with the first scroll, to define a compression chamber between the first scroll and the second scroll; a flange rotatably supported on the frame and supporting the first scroll and the second scroll, the flange being connected to the first scroll; and an actuating mechanism installed in the compressor shell and connected to the flange for driving the flange to rotate, so that the first scroll drives the second scroll to co-rotate, wherein the actuating mechanism comprises an axial-flux motor.
Regarding claim 2, Doepker discloses wherein the axial-flux motor is a disc motor (see page 4, para. [0054]).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Doepker discloses wherein the axial- flux motor comprises a stator 104 fixed to the frame 14, 39, and a rotor 106 connected to the flange 114 for driving the flange to rotate.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Doepker discloses wherein the rotor 106 is located below the stator 104 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Doepker discloses wherein the stator comprises a stator yoke (SY – see the annotated Fig. 2 below); a stator tooth (ST – see the annotated Fig. 2 below), a stator supporting ring (110, 107 – see Fig. 2) and windings (108) wound on the stator tooth.
PNG
media_image1.png
693
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepker in view of legal precedent.
Doepker discloses the invention as recited above; however, Doepker fails to disclose wherein the axial-flux motor has a rotational speed ranging from 0 rpm to 40000 rpm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a range of the rotational speed of the axial-flux motor from 0 rpm to 40000 rpm, since 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 Al1er, 220F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Note that the specification fails to disclose any criticality for the claimed limitation (see page 2, para. [0007]).
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepker in view of Asano (Patent Number 8,179,016B2).
Doepker discloses the invention as recited above; however, Doepker fails to disclose the stator supporting ring connected to the compressor shell by interference fit.
As shown in Figs. 1 and 4, Asano teaches wherein the stator yoke is fixedly connected to the stator supporting ring 61 and the stator supporting ring 61 is connected to the compressor shell 1 by interference fit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the stator supporting ring connected to the compressor shell by interference fit, as taught by Asano in the Doepker apparatus, since the use thereof would have supported and stabled the stator of the motor assembly for reducing the vibration and the noise of the compressor.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 6, 8, 10-12 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance :
- Dependent claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the rotor (72) and the flange (8) are connected by interference fit, and the stator (71) and the frame (4) are connected by a screw (18) (see para. [0049], para. [0060] and Fig. 1A of the instant application)”, in combination with the requirements of the dependent claims 3-4 and the independent claim 1, which is also not reasonably found in the prior art and so is also considered to be allowable subject matter.
- Dependent claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the stator (71 – see Figs. 1A-1B, 4 and 5A-5D of the instant application) further comprises a winding frame (716) mounted around the stator tooth (714), and the windings (717) are wound on the winding frames (716) (see para. [0061] and Figs. 1A-1B, 4 and 5A-5D of the instant application)”, in combination with the requirements of the dependent claims 3-4, 7 and the independent claim 1, which is also not reasonably found in the prior art and so is also considered to be allowable subject matter.
- Dependent claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the stator (71) is accommodated in the frame (4), and threaded holes (43 – see Fig. 1B) are provided on an outer edge of the frame (4) and the stator supporting ring (711) so that the frame (4) and the stator supporting ring (711) are fixedly connected by a screw (18 – see para. [0060] and Figs. 1B of the instant application)”, in combination with the requirements of the dependent claims 3-4, 7 and the independent claim 1, which is also not reasonably found in the prior art and so is also considered to be allowable subject matter.
- Dependent claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein one or more heat dissipation ribs (719 – see Figs. 7A-7B) are provided on an outer surface of the stator (71); and the heat dissipation ribs (719) are components made separately from the stator (71), or integrally formed with the stator (71 – see para. [0072] and Figs. 7A-7B of the instant application)”, in combination with the requirements of the dependent claim 3 and the independent claim 1, which is also not reasonably found in the prior art and so is also considered to be allowable subject matter.
- Dependent claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the rotor (72 – see Fig. 1B, 4 and 6A-6D) comprises a permanent magnet (723), a rotor yoke (725) and a rotor hub (721), wherein the permanent magnet (723) is held and fixed by the rotor yoke (725), and the rotor hub (721) and the flange (8) are connected by interference fit (see para. [0064] and Fig. 1A-2 and 4 of the instant application)”, in combination with the requirements of the dependent claims 3-4 and the independent claim 1, which is also not reasonably found in the prior art and so is also considered to be allowable subject matter.
- Dependent claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the rotor (72) and the flange (8) are connected by interference fit, and the stator (71) and the frame (4) are connected by a screw (18) (see para. [0049], para. [0060] and Fig. 1A of the instant application)”, in combination with the requirements of claims 2, 18-19 and the independent claim 1, which is also not reasonably found in the prior art and so is also considered to be allowable subject matter.
Prior Art
14. The IDS (PTO-1449) filed on June 28, 2024 has been considered. An initialized copy is attached hereto.
16. The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above 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 claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THERESA TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-4868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 on 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.
/TT/
/Theresa Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights