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 § 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) 1-4, 8-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107605739 (herein Que) in view of WO/253191 (herein Li).
A machine translation of Que and Li was provided with the previous office action and is relied upon herein.
Que teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a compressor (FIG. 6), comprising a cylinder (9), a flange (6), a muffling cover (7), and a motor (3-4), wherein: the motor comprises a motor rotor (4) and a rotation shaft (5); the flange (6) is mounted on the rotation shaft (FIG. 6; paragraph 41) and is connected to the cylinder (9), and the muffling cover (7) is arranged on the flange (FIG. 1 and FIG. 6) and located axially between the flange and the motor cover (see annotated FIG. 6 below); a muffling cavity is formed between the muffling cover and the flange (FIG. 1), and at least one exhaust port (17) is disposed in the muffling cover; multiple layers of rotor slots (4a) are arranged on the motor rotor (FIG. 6), and at least part of the rotor slots axially penetrate the motor rotor and the at least part of the rotor slots axially penetrating the motor rotor are defined as rotor through slots (see FIG. 6; paragraph 47) configured to circulate gas and refrigerant (paragraphs 53, 56); a total cross-sectional area of the rotor through slots is Sx (A5), and a total cross-sectional area of the at least one exhaust port (A2) is Ss, and it is satisfied that Sx>Ss (paragraph 50; A2/A5 > 0.6, the range of values meeting this limitation covers a scenario wherein A5 is greater than A2);
PNG
media_image1.png
578
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Que teaches an electric motor (3-4), but does not teach details of the motor and as such does not teach a synchronous motor;
Li teaches a compressor (see “technical field”) in which an electric motor for driving the compressor is embodied as a self-starting synchronous reluctance motor (see “Background Technique”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to substitute one known electric motor type for another, such as the synchronous motor of Li for the generic motor of Que, in order to reach an expected result (i.e. the driving of a compressor). Li further teaches that synchronous motors have low cost and reliability (see “Background Technique”).
Que further teaches:
limitations from claim 11, wherein 1.6 < Sx/Ss ≤ 4.8 (paragraph 50; A2/A5 > 0.6; these ranges overlap);
limitations from claim 13, wherein: the motor is a self-starting synchronous reluctance motor (via the combination with Li), and the compressor is a fixed- speed compressor (see “Background technique” of Li);
limitations from claim 15, wherein the multiple layers of rotor slots are all rotor through slots (FIG. 6; paragraph 47);
Regarding claims 3-4 and 12:
Que teaches rotor flow channels (4a) and an intake port (8), as well as a gap between the rotor and stator (this must be present in order for the two components to rotate relative to one another), but does not teach an area of the suction port relative thereto;
Que teaches varying the total area of flow channels in a compressor relative to compression unit output and openings, such as the muffler (paragraph 50 for example), so that smooth discharge and reduced pulsations can occur; further
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify flow passage areas relative to the suction port in the compressor taught by Que because the flow-through areas were recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a smooth flow and decreased pulsation, and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the areas to achieve a desired flow.
Li further teaches:
limitations from claim 2, wherein: the motor rotor has a shaft hole (12), and cross-sectional areas of the rotor slots (20) decrease successively from a center of the shaft hole toward outside along a radial direction of the motor rotor (see FIG. 1);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to provide rotor holes in the shapes taught by Li, when utilizing a synchronous motor in the compressor of Que, as Li teaches the use of particular slits/slots 20 can smooth magnetic flux).
limitations from claim 8, wherein: multiple layers of squirrel-cage slots (30, 40) and squirrel-cage end rings (60) are arranged on the motor rotor; air circulates inside the multiple layers of rotor slots (20), the squirrel-cage slots each are distributed around an outer circumference of a corresponding rotor slot in the same layer (FIG. 1), and the squirrel-cage slots are filled with conductive and non-magnetic materials and short-circuited by the squirrel-cage end rings (“The independent filling groove 40 and the filling groove 30 are filled with conductive and non-magnetic materials”);
limitations from claim 9, wherein: each rotor slot (20) and a corresponding squirrel-cage slot (30, 40) in each layer are separated by a separating rib (see FIG. 1; the material formed between 20 and 30 by rotor body 10); each rotor slot (20) and two squirrel-cage slots (30, 40) arranged at two ends thereof form a magnetic barrier layer; and at least two magnetic barrier layers are provided corresponding to one rotor pole (“The slot 20 and the filling grooves 30 corresponding to both ends form a magnetic barrier layer, and a magnetic channel is formed between adjacent magnetic barrier layers.”);
limitations from claim 10, wherein a ratio of the total cross-sectional area Sx of the rotor through slots to a total cross-sectional area Sz of the rotor slots is greater than 0.4 (all of the slots, 4a in Que and 20 in Li, are through slots and therefore the ratio is roughly 1);
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107605739 (herein Que) in view of WO/253191 (herein Li) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of CN 213637220 (herein Wang).
A machine translation of Wang is provided with the current office action and is relied upon herein.
Ques teaches a housing (2) in which the motor (3-4) is located;
Li teaches multiple layers of squirrel-cage slots (30, 40) and squirrel-cage end ring (60) are arranged on the motor rotor; the motor further comprises a motor stator (110; paragraphs 39, 46);
Neither Que nor Li discloses a stator through slot between the stator and the housing;
Wang teaches a compressor (FIG. 1) having a rotor (120) and stator (110); the rotor including through passages (121), and the stator formed with a groove/flat surface to form slots (111) between the stator and a casing (220);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to provide stator slots in the compressor of Que, as taught by Wang, in order to provide extra flow and cooling through the motor.
Regarding claims 6-7:
Wang teaches rotor (121) and stator (111) flow channels; Que teaches varying the total area of flow channels in a compressor (paragraph 50 for example) such that smooth discharge and reduced pulsations can occur;
Que and Wang do not teach a ratio of the area of the rotor channels to the totality of the channel areas; However,
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify flow passage areas in the compressor taught by Que and Wang because the flow-through areas were recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a smooth flow and decreased pulsation, and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the areas to achieve a desired flow.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107605739 (herein Que) in view of WO/253191 (herein Li) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of CN 108343609 (herein Sugiyama).
A machine translation of Sugiyama is provided with the current office action and is relied upon herein.
Que teaches using the compressor in a refrigeration device (air conditioner), but does not teach components of the device;
However, Sugiyama teaches a compressor (1) having an electric motor (12); and wherein the compressor is used in a refrigeration device including an expander (5), condenser (3), and evaporator (6);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to incorporate common refrigeration components, such as: expanders, evaporators, and condensers, in the refrigeration system of Que, as taught by Sugiyama, as a matter of design choice as these components are common to such systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the limitation “…slots configured to circulate gas and refrigerant”, the applicant argues (Page 9 of the response) that Li does not describe channels for circulating gas and refrigerant, the examiner maintains that Li is not relied upon to teach the rotor slots of claim 1 as Que discloses flow-through slots in a compressor motor rotor.
Applicant further argues that Que teaches rotor slots solely for gas passages. The examiner maintains that Que (see paragraphs 53 and 56) teaches that the slots 4a allow for passage of gas and refrigerant. Additionally, applicant argues that Que does not teach the slots simultaneously transporting gas/refrigerant while serving as magnetic barrier structures; However, this is a narrower reading of the claim language than what is present in claim 1. Claim 1 contains no language regarding magnetic barrier structures.
Regarding the cross-sectional relationship between the rotor slots and at least on exhaust port, the applicant argues (Page 10 of the response): that the area A2 of Que is different than Ss as claimed. The examiner disagrees, the value A2 in Que is the cross-section of the muffler exhaust port (paragraph 50 and FIG. 6; defined between flange 6 and the muffler 7), claim 1 requires that the value Ss is a cross-sectional area of the at least one exhaust port of the muffler. Applicant states “…this annular flow area is structurally and functionally different from the total cross-sectional area Ss of the exhaust port(s) (10)…”. However, the examiner maintains that the muffling cover (7) is located between the flange (6) and the rotor (4) as shown in annotated FIG. 6 above. It is otherwise unclear how the exhaust opening of Que differs from the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant further argues (Page 10 of the response) that one would not be motivated to combine or modify Que to form the recited features because the instant application and Que differ in their reasoning for the components. Initially, Que at paragraph 53, discloses that both reducing noise and efficiency (compressor performance) are accounted for in designing the appropriate cross-section ratios, therefore Que is not only concerned with noise and pulsation. Further, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Applicant argues that the teachings of Que cannot be applied to a synchronous reluctance motor compressor; However, as noted above Que is concerned with both noise and efficiency. The applicant has provided no structural reasoning why the compressor of Que cannot be embodied as a synchronous type.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
