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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets (US 2009/0016898) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-122487).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Smets, Figure 1 as annotated by Examiner below)
Smets discloses:
A blower comprising:
a case (A), a motor (7), a control unit (8,9), and a compression unit (6), wherein an chamber (4,5) is formed within the case, and the motor (7), the control unit (8,9), and the compression unit (6) are set within the chamber (4,5), wherein a first air inlet entrance (17) and a second air inlet entrance (11) that separately penetrate through a case side wall are defined on the case side walls of the case, the control unit (8,9) is in fluid communication with outside air through the first air inlet entrance (17), the motor (7) is in fluid communication with outside air through the second air inlet entrance (11), and the compression unit (6) is configured to compress the air inside the chamber (See Smets, Paragraphs [0017]-[0020]); the blower further comprising:
a control fan (16) being set on a side of the first air inlet entrance (17) towards the control unit (8,9) (See Smets, Paragraphs [0017]-[0020]);
a motor fan (10) being configured to provide air cooling to the motor (7), the motor fan (10) being set between the motor (7) and the second air inlet entrance (11). (See Smets, Paragraphs [0017]-[0020]).
Smets discloses the claimed invention except:
a gas filter being connected with the compression unit, wherein the gas filter is configured to suck the gas within the chamber and send the filtered gas to the compression unit to be compressed.
Tanaka et al. (Tana) discloses a package type compressor device. (See Tana, Paragraph [0001]). Tana discloses an in chamber compressor intake filter. (See Tana, Paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the suction air filter of Tana to intake chamber air for compression as both references are directed towards package type compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the suction air filter of Tana would have prevented unwanted particulates from entering and/or damaging the compressor system extending the lifespan of the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
589
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Smets, Figure 1 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Smets-Tana combination discloses:
wherein the said case side walls include a first end plate (B) and a second end plate (C) that are set oppositely to each other, wherein the first air inlet entrance (17) is set on the first end plate (B) and the second air inlet entrance (11) is set on the second end plate (C).
In Reference to Claim 4
(See Smets, Figure 1 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Smets-Tana combination discloses:
wherein the control unit (8,9) further has a heat radiating opening (18) in communication with the chamber (4,5), wherein the heat radiating opening (18) is located at a side of the control unit (8,9) facing away from the first air inlet entrance (17).
The Examiner notes that heat radiating opening is at a side of the control unit facing away from the first air entrance as the side is facing up which is away from the left facing side of the first air inlet entrance (17).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets (US 2009/0016898) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-122487), further in view of Hu et al. (CN 208763850).
In Reference to Claim 5
The Smets-Tana combination discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein an axis of the motor fan and an axis of the motor are coaxial, and the axis of the motor fan is misaligned with a center of the second air inlet entrance.
Hu et al. (Hu) discloses a package type compressor system. (See Hu, Paragraph [0002]). Hu discloses an axis of the motor fan and an axis of the motor are coaxial, and the axis of the motor fan is misaligned with a center of the second air inlet entrance. (See Hu, Figures 2-3, Paragraphs [0029]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the motor/compressor axially aligned fan and air inlet structure in the device of Smets, as both references are directed towards package type compression systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the air inlet structure and axially aligned motor fan compressor would have reduced overall noise of the operation of the system and improved motor cooling. (See Hu, Paragraphs [0018] & [0031]-[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 6
The Smets-Tana combination as modified by Hu discloses:
Wherein a fan cover is set between the motor fan and the second air inlet entrance, an air inlet channel is formed within the fan cover. (See Hu, Figures 2-3, Paragraphs [0029]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the motor/compressor axially aligned fan and air inlet structure in the device of Smets, as both references are directed towards package type compression systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the air inlet structure and axially aligned motor fan compressor would have reduced overall noise of the operation of the system and improved motor cooling. (See Hu, Paragraphs [0018] & [0031]-[0032]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets (US 2009/0016898) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-122487), further in view of Iguchi et al. (JP 2008-088852).
In Reference to Claim 7
The Smets-Tana combination discloses:
Wherein the blower further includes a compressor oil cooling system. (See Smets, Paragraph [0018]).
The Smets-Tana combination discloses the claimed invention except: wherein the blower further includes an oil tank which is located below the motor and supports the motor.
Iguchi et al. (Iguchi) discloses a package type compressor system. (See Iguchi, Paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). Iguchi discloses an oil tank which is located below the motor and supports the motor. (See Iguchi, Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the motor casing with oil tank and cooling of Iguchi as both references are directed towards package type compressor systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the motor oil package would have provided effective motor cooling and support reducing the overall size and complexity of the system while improving overall performance. (See Iguchi, Paragraphs [0080]-[0081]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets (US 2009/0016898) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-122487), further in view of Kubo et al. (US 5,507,618).
In Reference to Claim 9
The Smets-Tana combination discloses the claimed invention except: wherein a sound proofing panel is set between the gas filter and the case side wall.
Kubo et al. (Kubo) discloses a package type compressor system. (See Kubo, Abstract). Kubo discloses a sound proofing panel set between the case side wall and a compressor intake filter. (See Kubo, Column 4, Lines 16-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the sound proofing panel of Kubo to the device of Smets as both references are directed towards package type compressor systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sound proofing panel of Kubo would have reduced overall noise output of the system improving noise leaks. (See Kubo, Column 4, Lines 16-20 & Column 4, Lines 43-51).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets (US 2009/0016898) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-122487), further in view of Stallings (US 6,793,465).
In Reference to Claim 10
The Smets-Tana combination discloses:
wherein a compressed gas exit that penetrates through a case side wall is set on the case side wall of the case, and a compressed gas outlet of the compression unit
The Smets-Tana combination discloses the claimed invention except:
the blower further includes a muffler, which is set between the compressed gas outlet of the compression unit and the compressed gas exit.
Stallings discloses a package type compressor device. (See Stallings, Abstract). Stallings discloses a muffler, which is set between the compressed gas outlet of the compression unit and the compressed gas exit. (See Stallings, Column 3, Lines 33-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have add the discharge silencer of Stallings to the device of Smets as both references are directed towards package type compressor devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the discharge silencer would have reduced the noise output of the package type compressor improving overall sound reduction of the device. (See Stallings, Column 1, Lines 25-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the motor is configured to drive the compression unit to work via a transmission system, and the blower further includes an oil cooler configured to cool lubricant passing through the transmission system and an oil cooling fan configured to perform air cooling to the oil cooler, wherein a third air inlet entrance that penetrates through a case side wall is set on the case side wall of the case, and the oil cooling fan is in fluid communication with the outside airthrough the third air inlet entrance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sagawa, Gunn, Janscha, Lucas, and Hutchinson show package compressor devices within the general state of the art of invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights