DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 22 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Page 6-7, applicant argues that in claim 1, Damson (DE 10225871) does not teach “that a cylinder head upper part is made of steel while an adjacent cylinder head lower part is made of light metal.”
Page 7, applicant argues that a new translation of Damson from German should be cited. An additional translation of Damson from the European Patent Office is attached and cited to in this response to arguments (Damson, obtained from https://translationportal.epo.org/, 11 September 2026).
Page 7, applicant argues that the German text of Damson does not specifically indicate that the “housing cover” or “the cylinder head” are made of steel parts in the prior art. That Damson instead specifies that drive shaft, radial bearings, housing-cover, cylinder head screws, valves, and valve holding plate are made of steel. And that the steel of the housing cover and cylinder head is a mistranslation of the German text, which refers only to the housing-cover screws.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
1002
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on applicant fig 3
Examiner acknowledges that the screws are explicitly disclosed as made of steel. However, the screws made of steel does not contradict that Damson also discloses “the housing cover” and “the cylinder head” made of steel.
Dawson explicitly discloses that conventionally the “housing cover” made of steel as a high stressed compound (par 0011), and that the housing, cylinder block, cylinder head, and pistons are made of aluminum to reduce weight and increase heat transfer (par 0011, 0020). Dawson explicitly discloses alternately manufacturing the “cylinder head” of steel because it is subject to high pressure and temperature stress, and would benefit from being made of steel to achieve the high structural rigidity with small wall thickness (par 0023).
Page 8, Applicant argues that Damson teaches away from the claimed selective multi-material cylinder head assembly, because of increased recycling costs of mixed material compressors taught in Damson.
Applicant’s argument is not convincing; the rule is that a teaching away requires showing that the claimed path would not work or its intended purpose. While Damson does disclose the disadvantage of recycling costs for a that is made of both steel and aluminum because of the material sorting costs (par 0013, 0020); Damson’s teaching away is directed at recycling costs and not at functional operability or the benefits of manufacturing of steel and aluminum. The mixed material construction taught by Damson are known constructions in the prior art. Furthermore, Damson explicitly provides a motivation to construct the ”cylinder head” of steel in order to benefit from increase structural rigidity with small wall thickness to deal with high pressure and temperature stress (par 0023), and the valve plate of steel for high stress (par 0011) and the cylinder head lower part / housing made of aluminum for reduced weight (par 0011). This teaching provides an independent motivation and intended purpose for manufacture of steel and aluminum; these additional benefits show that recycling costs do not constitute a teaching away from manufacturing in steel for dealing with stresses or manufacturing from aluminum for decreasing weight. The rule is that a teaching away must render prior art unsatisfactory for intended purpose (MPEP 2145(X)(D)). In this case, the consideration of recycling costs does not constitute a teaching away because recycling costs are not related to the increased structural rigidity of steel or the desired weight reduction of aluminum. Furthermore, economic cost does not constitute a teaching away because increased economic cost does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from seeking another benefit from said technology (MPEP 2145(VII); In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718, 219 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ).
Page 9, applicant argues that the rejection relies on an improper mapping of Damson’s elements cylinder head 20, valve holding plate 33, cylinder block 19 and housing cover 27 to the claimed cylinder head lower part, cylinder head, upper part, and valve plate as arranged in claim 1. It appears that applicant’s argument is directed toward the terminology used in Damson, however the rule is that identical terminology is not required, that the element must be arranged as required by the claim. (MPEP 2131, In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It appears that
In this case, the office action, on page 8 clearly recites that valve plate 33 and cylinder head upper part 20 are made of steel as high stressed parts and elements housing 18 and cylinder block 19 are made of aluminum. This interpretation is in agreement with the drawing that applicant submitted.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s annotations on Damson fig 1, excerpt from applicant’s Remarks 22 July 2026, page 9
PNG
media_image3.png
475
924
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Damson fig 1
Applicant’s annotated drawing is in agreement with the office action (Non-Final, 21 May 2026 page 8) citation to Damson, which shows 20, 33, and 19 adjacent to each other. Structurally, the arrangement shows an analogous pump with a cylinder head made of steel (20) arranged on a side of the valve plate made of steel (33) opposite a cylinder block made of aluminum (19).
The office acknowledges that office action includes a typographic error (Non-Final, 21 May 2026 page 9) and cites cylinder head as (housing cover 27) instead of cylinder head (20). However, the citation to housing cover (27) in place of cylinder head (20) does not prejudice the applicant or affect the substantive basis of the rejection. The error is a simple substitution of (27 for 20), and since element (20) is explicitly identified as “cylinder head” in Damson and element (27) is a “housing cover” the correction does not change the scope of the prior art relied upon. It simply clarifies that “cylinder head (20)” meets the limitation for cylinder head.
The applicant was fully apprised of “cylinder head (20)” as a substantive element in Damson because it was explicitly cited as relevant to the teachings of Damson, while “housing cover 27” was not cited (Non-Final, 21 May 2026 page 8). Correcting the numeral aligns the citation with the actual disclosure in Damson without changing the teaching or requiring new search efforts.
A Person Having Ordinary Skill in The Art, reviewing Damson, would understand this to be an obvious clerical error. Element 27 is a housing cover and does not structurally correspond to the claimed cylinder head upper part adjacent to the valve plate (33). Conversely, element 20 is explicitly disclosed as the cylinder head disposed adjacent to the valve holding plate (33), matching the structural arrangement of Claim 1. This correction aligns the citation with the actual disclosure in Damson and does not prejudice the Applicant or alter the substantive basis of the rejection regarding the mixed-material assembly.
Applicant further argues that Damson does not provide a reason for the specific selections of a cylinder head assembly, of light metal for the housing sleeve, covers, and cylinder head lower part, and steel for the valve plate and cylinder head upper part. Applicant is incorrect, Damson explicitly teaches use of steel for high stress components, and the use of aluminum when lighter weight material is desired (par 0011, 0023). The office action explicitly recites selecting compressor parts of Dittrich of different metals for strength, lightness, and thermal transfer, as taught by Damson (Office action, page 9).
Applicant argues that the disclosed invention “identifies a different technical balance than Damson.” The office agrees. However, “a different technical balance” of known components does not overcome an obviousness rejection absent unexpected results (MPEP 2141). Applicant argues that the application selects aluminum for some components for its light weight; and selects steel for some components because of exposure to pressure. The office notes that selection of these materials for these reasons is convention and produces the result that is explicitly taught by Damson. Damson’s additional teaching of the benefit of saving costs of recycling by using all-steel solutions does not teach away from the use of aluminum for lightness or steel for components exposed to pressure. Therefore, Damson clearly makes obvious the limitations missing from Dittrich, and the rejection is maintained.
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.
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.
NOT INVOKED DESPITE PRESENCE
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“spacer element” in claim 19. The term spacer provides sufficient structural description to perform the function of spacing.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittrich (US 2002/0062657) in view of Bahmata (US 2012/0183422) in view of Strong (US 2002/0135244) in view of Grybush (US 2018/0291885) in view of Damson (DE 10225871, citation to machine translation).
PNG
media_image4.png
858
888
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Dittrich Fig 1
Claim 1, Dittrich discloses a refrigerant compressor (title) comprising an overall housing (fig 1, 10, par 0051) with a motor housing portion (portion of 10 holding motor 20), in which there is arranged a motor chamber (motor 20 is in 10) having, provided therein, an electric motor (20) comprising a stator (26) and a rotor (24), and with a compressor housing portion (11) which has a compressor unit (14a 14b), the overall housing has a first cover and a second cover (fig 1 depicts a first and second cover on either side of crankcase 11, See drawing above), between which a housing sleeve extends (central portion of crankcase 11), which has a motor housing portion (10) and a compressor housing portion (11) in which the compressor unit (14a,14b) is provided, the compressor housing portion has a cylinder housing (compressor housing 11 holds cylinder chambers 12a 12b and therefore meets the plain meaning of cylinder housing) with a cylinder head (cylinder head 40), the cylinder head has a cylinder head lower part (face of head 20 in contact with valve plate 30, par 0053) arranged on the cylinder housing which receives the cylinders, the cylinder head lower part carrying a valve plate (30) and on said valve plate there is arranged a cylinder head upper part (top of cylinder head 20) on a side opposite to said cylinder head lower part (bottom of cylinder head 20), which closes off the cylinder head lower part (top of cylinder head closes off the valves from the outside atmosphere and allows the compressor to function, par 0054).
Dittrich is silent on wherein the housing sleeve has an approximately cylindrical shape, the valve plate and the cylinder head upper part are made of steel, wherein the housing sleeve and the covers as well as the cylinder head lower part are made of light metal,
and wherein the cylinder head comprises an assembly of adjacent structural portions of different metal materials, including the valve plate of steel disposed adjacent to the cylinder head lower part of light metal.
Bahmata teaches a compressor housing sleeve (fig 4, cylindrical portion 20a) has a cylindrical shape (fig 4, 20a is called cylindrical, par 0020). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the housing sleeve (11) of Dittrich in a cylindrical shape as taught by Bahmata for the expected result of accommodating a rotating electrical motor as is known in the art.
Strong teaches an electric motor with a motor housing sleeve made of aluminum (par 0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)). In this case, selecting aluminum is an art recognized suitable material for the motor “housing sleeve” of Dittrich due to its response to heat (Strong, par 0015) and availability as a material.
Grybush teaches a compressor with end housings (26) made of cast material such as aluminum (par 0032) and head covers made of aluminum (par 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)). In this case, selecting aluminum is an art recognized suitable material for compressor housing and a cover for said housing (par 0045) of Dittrich for the intended purpose of using a castable and easily workable metal (Grybush, par 0045).
Damson teaches a refrigerant compressor (abstract) where the valve plate (33) and the cylinder head upper part (20) are made of steel because they are high stressed parts (pg 6 bottom paragraph), and the housing (18), cylinder block (19), and cylinder head lower part , are made of aluminum in order to reduce heat and increase heat transfer(pg 6 bottom paragraph).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)). In this case, selecting steel is an art recognized suitable material for the compressor parts of Dittrich in order to select differing metals for strength, lightness, and thermal transfer.
As a result of Damson’s material teachings in the combination meets the limitation “the valve plate (Damson, fig 1 steel valve plate 33) and the cylinder head upper part (Damson, 20) are made of steel,
and wherein the cylinder head [upper part] comprises an assembly of adjacent structural portions of different metal materials (Damson, fig 1 shows the steel valve plate 33, adjacent the aluminum cylinder head lower part 19), including the valve plate of steel disposed adjacent to the cylinder head lower part of light metal (id.).”
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches a refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein the cylinder head lower part (Dittrich, fig 1, cylinder head 40 and valve plate 30 connects to crankcase 11, para 0054) in turn carries a cylinder head upper part (upper part of 40) which closes off the cylinder head lower part and has at least one outlet chamber (pressure chamber 38, para 0054) integrated therein, and wherein in that refrigerant connections guided into the overall housing are arranged either in the cylinder head upper part (fig 4, channel 60, section 64 are in head 40, par 0057, 0061, first of two alternately claimed) or in one of the covers (second of two alternately claimed).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1. Dittrich does not disclose wherein said compressor is a two-stage compressor, and in that an outlet chamber for medium pressure and an outlet chamber for high pressure are provided in the cylinder head upper part.
Grybush further teaches the compressor is a two-stage compressor (par 0061), and in that an outlet chamber for medium pressure (fig 10-11, first stage exhaust 398, par 0061) and an outlet chamber for high pressure (fig 10-11, second stage exhaust 406, par 0061) are provided in a cylinder head upper part (fig 10-11, the cylinder head is configured with passages for first stage and second stage intake and exhaust, par 0061).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylinder head controlling flow to intake and exhaust for the two compression cylinders of Dettrich to route passages for two-stage compressor as taught by Grybush to be able to reach higher compressor discharge pressures.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches a refrigerant compressor according to claim 1. Dittrich is silent on the refrigerant compressor is configured (Dittrich is a compressor and capable of compressing gas) for CO2 as refrigerant (CO2 as refrigerant does not limit the claim, See MPEP 2115). Material or article worked upon does not limit an apparatus claim (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), MPEP 2115). In this case the claim contains no further limitations than the particular gas pumped, and configuring the compressor to pump C02 does not express or imply any other particular structure in addition to the compressor configured to pump C02. Therefore, the C02 as refrigerant is an intended use of the machine and not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches a refrigerant compressor according to claim 1. Dittrich does not teach wherein the stator is mounted in the motor housing portion by means of supporting elements inserted into the motor housing portion, which supporting elements on the one hand abut against a stator-receiving surface of the motor housing portion and on the other hand surround the stator inserted into the supporting elements on its outer side and support it spring-elastically relative to the stator-receiving surface.
PNG
media_image5.png
548
676
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Strong Fig 1
Strong further teaches an electric motor (10) comprising a stator (fig 1, 20) and a rotor (22), wherein the stator (20) is mounted in the motor housing portion (16) by means of supporting elements (tolerance band 26) inserted into the motor housing portion, which supporting elements on the one hand abut against a stator-receiving surface (housing groove 27) and on the other hand surround the stator (20) inserted into the supporting elements on its outer side and support it elastically relative to the stator- receiving surface (par 0016).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor assembly of Dittrich by adding a tolerance band 26 of Strong between the stator and housing of Dittrich in order to reduce vibrations and noise of the motor (Strong, par 0018-0019).
Furthermore, the structure of applicant’s claimed support and Strong’s tolerance band (26) appear to be depicted nearly identically in applicant’s fig 8 and Strong’s fig 3, which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the two structures may have inherently the same attributes.
PNG
media_image6.png
515
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Strong fig 3.
PNG
media_image7.png
627
653
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig 8, Examiner notes that applicant’s fig 8 and Strong fig 9 appear to be substantially structurally similar
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 7, wherein the supporting elements have spring- elastic bodies (Strong, tolerance band 26 with waves 32 is elastomeric, par 0016). Strong does not explicitly disclose the elastic bodies being dimensioned such that they are in an elastically deformed state in all operating states of the motor housing portion occurring during operation of the refrigerant compressor.
Nevertheless, Strong teaches the dimensions of the band 26 would depend on the application (par 0016); and that size, torque, thermal range, acceptable cogging, ripple, noise, and vibration would all effect the end design and sizing of the tolerance band 26 (par 0016). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the operating states of the motor and refrigerant compressor in which the tolerance band 26 has an elastically deformable state is a matter of design choice; and that it is within the general skill of an ordinary practitioner of the art to select a tolerable size, torque, thermal range, cogging, ripple, noise, or vibration of the motor and thereby size the tolerance band 26 accordingly.
PNG
media_image8.png
598
575
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Strong fig 2
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 7, wherein the supports (Strong, band 20 with waves 32) are arranged running around the stator (Strong, fig 2, the band is arranged around the stator like a ring) and support the stator (Strong, para 0016) at a plurality of locations (fig 3 depicts a plurality of peaks and valleys) on opposite sides (fig 3 band 26 encircling the stator 20) of the rotor axis relative to the stator-receiving surface of the motor housing portion (Strong, fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 9, wherein the supporting elements have elastic bodies arranged at defined angular intervals around the rotor axis (Strong fig 2 shows band 20 with waves 32 at a regular wave pattern of equal angular intervals around the axis).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 7, wherein the elastic bodies (Strong, waves 32) are positioned relative to one another by a band material (Strong, tolerance band 26, par 0016) positioning them relative to one another (Strong, each wave 32 is positioned by band 26) and running around the stator (Strong, par 0016).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 11, wherein the elastic bodies (Strong, waves 32) are formed into the band material (Strong tolerance band 26).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 11, wherein the band material (Strong, tolerance band 26) is in the form of a ring-like clasp (Strong fig 3 is the same as applicant’s fig 8 depicting the ring-like clasp shape of the band) with open ends (Strong fig 3, tolerance band 26 has open ends in the same manner depicted in applicant’s fig 8).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 7, wherein the spring-elastic bodies (Strong, 32) have flank regions (Strong fig 3 is identical to applicants fig 8 and appears to have the claimed flank region) running at an acute angle (sides of waves 32 form acute angles with the surface it abuts against; *examiner notes that this interpretation is analogous to applicant’s disclosure of acute angle in applicant’s fig 8, specification par 0053, 0115, see drawings) to the outer side of the stator and/or to the stator-receiving surface between foot regions (Strong, peaks of waves 32) and support regions (valleys of waves 32), one of which abuts against the outer side of the stator (Strong, fig 2, band 26 presses against outside of stator) and the other of which abuts against the stator-receiving surface (Strong, fig 2, band 26 presses against inside of housing).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 7, wherein the spring-elastic bodies (Strong, 32) are successively formed into a spring-elastic band material (elastomeric material, par 0016) such that successive support regions (valleys of waves 32) abut against an outer side of the stator (Strong fig 2, band 26 presses against outside of stator) or against the stator-receiving surface and successive foot regions (peaks of waves 32) abut against the stator- receiving surface (band 26 presses against the inside of housing) or the outer side of the stator.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 7, wherein the elastic bodies (Strong, fig 3, wave 32, par 0016) are located between edge regions (See annotated figure below) arranged peripherally around the stator, and the support regions (Strong, 32) are connected to the edge regions by means of flank regions (sides of wave 32) running at an acute angle (sides of waves 32 form acute angles with the surface it abuts against; *examiner notes that this interpretation is analogous to applicant’s disclosure of acute angle in applicant’s fig 8, specification par 0053, 0115, see drawings below) to the outer side of the stator and/or to the stator-receiving surface.
PNG
media_image6.png
515
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Strong fig 3.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 16, wherein, on the one hand, the support regions (Strong, 32) abut against the outer side of the stator or the stator-receiving surface.
Strong is silent as to whether the edge regions (Strong fig 9, See annotated drawing at claim 10) abut against the stator-receiving surface or the outer side of the stator.
Nevertheless, Strong teaches that the size and shape of the waves could be easily altered for an application to provide any desired holding force while minimizing or eliminating cogging from the motor 10. Therefore, it is within the general skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of Strong’s wave 32 to meet desired holding force.
The difference between Strong’s tolerance band 26 and the claim limitation is that Strong is silent as to whether each wave 32 protrudes in such a way that the edges of tolerance band 26 come into contact with either the outer wall of the stator or the inner wall of the motor housing.
Applicant does not disclose any unexpected result of the claimed edge portion abutting against the stator-receiving surface or the outer side of the stator, other than the predictable result of fixing the stator in place within the housing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape and position of Strong’s wave 32 such that the edges of tolerance band 26 abut against the stator-receiving surface or the outer side of the stator as an obvious change of shape (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). The rule is that changes of shape are a matter of choice which are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,). In this case, the claimed shape does nothing more than provide another variation of shape of the Strong tolerance band 26 which provides spring support of the stator with waves 32.
Furthermore, Since the shape would continue to support the stator against the motor housing using spring force from tolerance band 26, the Strong’s tolerance band 26 would continue to function in the same manner in the claimed configuration, and the claimed configuration would not modify the operation of Strong’s tolerance band 26.
Therefore, the claimed configuration of the support regions and edge regions is an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor of claim 7, wherein the support elements are formed from a spring steel (Strong, band 26 made of steel, par 0016; where that steel had a spring rate, par 0016).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 7, wherein one of the supports (Strong, 26) is positioned in respect of its position in the motor housing portion by a step (Strong, groove 27; the expected result of the groove 27 is positioning of band 26, par 0016) adjoining the stator-receiving surface.
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor of claim 1, wherein the approximately cylindrical shape is a circular-cylindrical shape (Bahmata, fig 4, 20a is called cylindrical, par 0020; cylinders met the plain meaning of circular-cylindrical shape, because a conventional cylinder is a circular cylinder).
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches the refrigerant compressor of claim 1, wherein the light metal is aluminum (Strong, motor housing sleeve made of aluminum, par 0015; Grybush, end housing and cast covers made of aluminum, par 0032, 0045).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittrich in view of Bahmata in view of Strong in view of Grybush in view of Damson in view of Mueller (DE9320524, citations to machine translation).
PNG
media_image9.png
597
905
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Mueller fig 1
Regarding claim 2, the Dittrich combination teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1.
Dittrich does not disclose at least one contact insert for guiding electrical lines into the overall housing is provided in one of the covers.
Nevertheless, Dittrich discloses the electric motor (20) but is silent about electrical connections to the motor to power or control said motor. The motor’s (20) requirement for electrical connections is a motivation to provide an electrical connection to motor (20) through some part of the outer housing (11 or two housing ends) of the compressor in order to reach the motor.
Mueller teaches a refrigerant compressor (fig 1, par 0019) with an electric motor (24), wherein at least one contact insert (fig 1, electrical supply lines 32, par 0020) for guiding electrical lines (32) into the housing at an analogous cover (See annotated drawing).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover at the motor axial end of Dittrich by adding a contact insert for guiding electrical lines to a cover nearest the electrical motor as taught by Muller for the expected result of providing electrical power to the motor (20) of Dittrich.
Regarding claim 3, the Dittrich combination in view of Mueller teaches the refrigerant compressor according to claim 2, wherein all electrical lines (Mueller, electrical lines 13) guided into the overall housing (Dittrich, 11) are guided by means of at least one contact insert (Mueller, electrical lines pass through the inserts, See annotated fig 1) in at least one of the covers (Mueller, electrical inserts are at the covers as taught by Mueller, See claim 2) of the overall housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The nearest prior art is Banham (US 2020/0136470).
PNG
media_image10.png
390
620
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Banham fig 4
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. It is noted by the examiner, and stated here for the record of prosecution, that the aspect of the instant invention determined to be novel and patentably distinct from the prior art is “wherein the supports are arranged successively in the direction of the rotor axis and are positioned spaced apart from one another in the motor housing portion by a spacer element, and wherein the spacer element is inserted into the stator-receiving surface.”
These limitations distinguish over Banham’s grooves cut into the outer housing or stator in order to place corrugated rings 32a-32e (Braham, para 0031, 0037) because the claimed spacer is insert into the stator-receiving surface and provides the benefit of placement of the rings without material removal (as applicant has argued on pages 11 and 12 of the Remarks dated 27 February 2024), and thereby make the claim read over the prior art. The sum of these limitations is not disclosed by the prior art and it would not be obvious to combine references in an effort to meet all of the claimed elements.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights