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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 7/14/2026. Claim 19 is new. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a) have been maintained. Accordingly, claims 1-19 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
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.
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:
battery system in at least claim 1;
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.
Battery pack assembly 130 in Applicant Specification 0022.
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.
§ 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “high voltage” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the battery system, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, the term “generally” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The terms “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the cross-car direction, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claims 3-9 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7,9-10, 11-13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NishikaIn regarding to applicant' s argument that the term “control unit” should not invoke 112f, the Examiner disagrees. The claim language uses a generic placeholder, “unit,” coupled with functional language (“control”), without reciting sufficient structure in the Specification. Further the term “unit” is merely a nonce word of “non-structural generic placeholder” equivalent to the term “means” because it fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and, in the context of claims 1 and 15, invokse § 112(f). Therefore, the applicant' s argumwa (US20190084403A1) in view of Kanno (US20120031689A1), Song (WO2018196485A1) and Hosoi (JP2013021829A).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishikawa teaches an electrified vehicle [electric vehicle 8, Figure 1; 0048] comprising:
an electrified powertrain [electric drive unit 10, Figure 2; 0048] including a hiqh-voltaqe battery system [where electric power is supplied at a high-voltage of about AC 650 (V) from a fuel cell 18 mounted on the electric vehicle 8 and a battery, where the present disclosure can be applied to an electric vehicle without the fuel cell 18 in which the electric power can be supplied only from a battery; 0049] configured to power an electric traction motor [motor generator 12, Figure 2] to generate and transfer drive torque [via motor shaft 34 and power transmission mechanism 54, Figure 2] to a driveline [drive shafts 56, Figure 2];
a frame supporting the electric traction motor [where in the embodiment of Figure 12 the electric drive unit 110 is attached via a mount by an upper-side cross-member, where Figure 12 includes the electric drive unit as the embodiment of Figure 2; 0066-0067]; and
a thermal system configured to provide cooling to the electrified vehicle [an air conditioner; 0054], the thermal system including a coolant loop with an electric compressor [where an electric compressor for an air conditioner is fixed as the accessory component 70, Figure 2; 0054, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand an electric compressor driven air conditioner includes a coolant loop], wherein the electric traction motor includes roll, pitch, and yaw rotational modes corresponding to an X-Y-Z coordinate system [X: into the page of Figure 2, Y: vehicle width direction, and Z: the vehicle up direction, Figure 2; where the torque fluctuation of the motor generator 12 is fluctuation in output torque for running or regenerative torque, for example, and generates vibration at a frequency corresponding to the number of poles of the motor generator 12; 0053; where the drive motor 11 inherently has torsional and bending modes, understood as mode shapes dependent on frequency of excitation, refer to pertinent art], wherein the electric traction motor includes an output shaft [motor shaft 34, Figure 2] configured to rotate about the Y-axis [vehicle width direction, Figure 2],
wherein the electric compressor is configured to generate axial force in an axial direction [where compressors are inherently configured to generate radial and axial forces, refer to pertinent art] and radial forces [where compressors are inherently configured to generate radial and axial forces, refer to pertinent art] in a radial direction along the Y-axis [vehicle width direction, Figure 2 and Figure 4], wherein the electric compressor is coupled to the electric traction motor [via attachment member 72, Figure 2]
wherein the electric compressor is located such that a center of gravity (COG) of the electric compressor [ gravity center O, Figure 2; 0054] has the same Z- and Y- coordinates as a center of rotation of the electric traction motor [where a gravity center O of the accessory component 70 is located on the first axis S1, Figure 2; 0054; where the motor shaft 34 is rotatably supported by the case 16 around an axial center coincident with the first axis S1, Figure 2; 0051].
Nishikawa does not teach a steering wheel.
However, Kanno teaches a mounting structure for an electric vehicle [0001] including a steering wheel [where a steering column can be installed regardless whether the vehicles is designed to have a steering wheel on the right or left side; 0054] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a steering wheel and vehicle, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a user with manual steering control of a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Nishikawa to have a steering wheel in view of the teachings of Kanno where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a user with manual steering control of a vehicle.
The combined teachings do not teach the axial direction of the electric compressor along the Z-axis, wherein the electric compressor is coupled to the electric traction motor such that the axial direction is aligned with the Z-axis that corresponds to the yaw rotational mode.
However, Song teaches a vertical compressor for vehicles [0001] where the electric compressor [an electric vertical compressor, Figure 1; 0008] is coupled [where the housing 3 is provided with one or more mounting feed 307, 404 to install the compressor in the vehicle, Figure 2; 0065] such that the axial direction is aligned with the Z-axis that corresponds to the yaw rotational mode [where the compressor has a vertical structure in a vehicle, Figure 2; 0070; where Z axis is interpreted as a vertical axis] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, a vertical compressor, for another, a horizontal compressor, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing stable lubricating pool inside the compressor [Song, 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the electric compressor is coupled such that the axial direction is aligned with the Z-axis that corresponds to the yaw rotational mode in view of the teachings of Song where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing stable lubricating pool inside the compressor [Song, 0003].
The combined teachings do not explicitly teach the center of gravity of the electric traction motor is along the center of rotation of the electric traction motor.
However, Hosoi teaches a method for manufacturing an electric motor [0001] where the center of gravity of the electric traction motor [electric motor 1, Figure 1] is along the center of rotation of the electric traction motor [where the center of gravity G of the rotor body 5a and the rotation center O are approximately in coincidence, Figure 7; 0041] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing rotational balance in good condition [Hosoi;0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein the electric compressor is located such that a center of gravity (COG) of the electric compressor has the same Z- and Y- coordinates as a COG of the electric traction motor in view of the teachings of Hosoi where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing rotational balance in good condition [Hosoi;0041].
Claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “to thereby excite the yaw rotational mode of the electric traction motor, which reduces vibrational output of the electric compressor to the steering wheel.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 3, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherean orientation of the electric compressor [accessory component 70, Figure 2; 0054] relative to the electric traction motor [motor generator 12, Figure 2] does not excite the roll and pitch rotational modes of the electric traction motor [where the accessory component functions as a mass damper to provide damping vibrations in direction A, Figure 2, where the gravity center of the accessory component is located at a position separated from the first end surface portion in the motor centerline direction, and the moment about the coupling portion of the transaxle becomes larger so that a vibration or swing in a direction (radial direction) perpendicular to the motor centerline can more effectively be damped; 0019].
Regarding Claim 4, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, and does not teach where the electric compressor includes a compressor scroll configured to rotate about the axial direction.
However, Song teaches a vertical compressor for vehicles [0001] where the electric compressor [an electric vertical compressor, Figure 1; 0008] where the electric compressor includes a compressor scroll [moving scroll 15, Figure 2; 0063] configured to rotate about the axial direction [where the motor mechanism is used to drive the moving scroll 15 relative to stationary scroll 2, Figure 2; 0068] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, a vertical compressor, for another, a horizontal compressor, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing stable lubricating pool inside the compressor [Song, 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the electric compressor includes a compressor scroll configured to rotate about the axial direction view of the teachings of Song where the substitution of an element for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing stable lubricating pool inside the compressor [Song, 0003].
Regarding Claim 6, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the electric compressor [accessory component 70, Figure 9] is coupled to the electric traction motor [electric drive unit 10, Figure 9] via one or more non-elastomeric mounts [where attachment members 72 are without interposing the elastic body 74, Figure 9; 0063].
Regarding claim 7, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and further teaches where the electric traction motor [electric drive unit 10, Figure 12] is coupled to the frame [vehicle body; 0053] via one or more elastomeric mounts [where the electric drive unit 10 is disposed on a vehicle body via a rubber mount; 0053, where Figure 12 includes the electric drive unit of Figure 2].
Regarding Claim 9, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the electrified vehicle [electric vehicle 8, Figure 1] is absent of an internal combustion engine [where the present disclosure can be applied to an electric vehicle without the fuel cell 18 in which the electric power can be supplied only from a battery; 0049].
Regarding Claim 10, Nishikawa teaches a method of assembling an electrified vehicle [0002] to reduce steering wheel vibrations [where it is an object of the present disclosure to suppress deterioration in NV performance due to motor noise and/or gear noise in an electric vehicle including an electric drive unit having a transaxle housed in a case together with an electric motor; 0006], the method comprising:
providing a frame [vehicle body, Figure 1; 0053];
coupling an electric traction motor to the frame [where the electric drive unit 10 as described above is disposed on a vehicle body via a rubber mount; 0053], wherein the electric traction motor includes roll, pitch, and yaw rotational modes [where the torque fluctuation of the motor generator 12 is fluctuation in output torque for running or regenerative torque, for example, and generates vibration at a frequency corresponding to the number of poles of the motor generator 12; 0053; where the drive motor 11 inherently has torsional and bending modes, understood as mode shapes dependent on frequency of excitation, refer to pertinent art] corresponding to an X-Y-Z coordinate system [X: into the page of Figure 2, Y: vehicle width direction, and Z: the vehicle up direction, Figure 2; where the torque fluctuation of the motor generator 12 is fluctuation in output torque for running or regenerative torque, for example, and generates vibration at a frequency corresponding to the number of poles of the motor generator 12; 0053; where the drive motor 11 inherently has torsional and bending modes, understood as mode shapes dependent on frequency of excitation, refer to pertinent art], wherein the electric traction motor includes an output shaft [motor shaft 34, Figure 2] confiqured to rotate about the Y-axis [vehicle width direction, Figure 2];
providing an electric compressor [where an electric compressor for an air conditioner is fixed as the accessory component 70, Figure 2; 0054] configured to generate axial force in an axial direction and radial forces in a radial direction [where compressors are inherently configured to generate radial and axial forces, refer to pertinent art];
determining a COG of the electric compressor [gravity center O, Figure 2; 0054];
locating the electric compressor such that the COG of the electric compressor has the same Z- and Y- coordinates as the center of rotation of the electric traction motor [where a gravity center O of the accessory component 70 is located on the first axis S1, Figure 2; 0054; where the motor shaft 34 is rotatably supported by the case 16 around an axial center coincident with the first axis S1, Figure 2; 0051]; and
coupling the electric compressor to the electric traction motor [via attachment member 72, Figure 2] such that the radial direction is along the Y- axes [vehicle width direction, Figure 2 and Figure 4].
Nishikawa does not teach determining a center of gravity (COG) of the electric traction motor; locating the electric compressor such that the COG of the electric compressor has the same Z- and Y- coordinates as the COG of the electric traction motor.
Hosoi teaches a method for manufacturing an electric motor [0001] determining a center of gravity (COG) of the electric traction motor [electric motor 1, Figure 1, where the offset of the gravity center G of the rotor main body 5a and the rotation center O of the main body 5a Is measured, Figure 5; 0033] and locating the center of gravity of the electric traction motor along the center of rotation of the electric traction motor [where the center of gravity G of the rotor body 5a and the rotation center O are approximately in coincidence, Figure 7; 0041] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, aligning the center of gravity with the center of rotation, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing rotational balance in good condition [Hosoi;0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have determining a center of gravity (COG) of the electric traction motor; locating the electric compressor such that the COG of the electric compressor has the same Z- and Y- coordinates as the COG of the electric traction motor in view of the teachings of Hosoi where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing rotational balance in good condition [Hosoi;0041].
The combined teachings do not teach a steering wheel.
However, Kanno teaches a mounting structure for an electric vehicle [0001] including a steering wheel [where a steering column can be installed regardless whether the vehicles is designed to have a steering wheel on the right or left side; 0054] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a steering wheel and vehicle, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a user with manual steering control of a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Nishikawa to have a steering wheel in view of the teachings of Kanno where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a user with manual steering control of a vehicle.
The combined teachings do not teach where coupling the electric compressor to the electric traction motor such that the radial direction is alonq the X-and Y- axes and the axial direction is aligned with the Z-axis that corresponds to the yaw rotational mode.
However, Song teaches a vertical compressor for vehicles [0001] including coupling the electric compressor [an electric vertical compressor, Figure 1; 0008; where the housing 3 is provided with one or more mounting feed 307, 404 to install the compressor in the vehicle, Figure 2; 0065] such that the radial direction is along the X-and Y- directions and the axial direction is aligned with the Z-axis that corresponds to the yaw rotational mode [where the compressor has a vertical structure in a vehicle, Figure 2; 0070; where Z axis is interpreted as the vertical direction and the X and Y directions are the lateral directions] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, a vertical compressor, for another, a horizontal compressor, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing stable lubricating pool inside the compressor [Song, 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the electric compressor is coupled such that the axial direction is aligned with the Z-axis that corresponds to the yaw rotational mode in view of the teachings of Song where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing stable lubricating pool inside the compressor [Song, 0003].
The claim language, to thereby excite the yaw rotational mode of the electric traction motor, which reduces vibrational output of the electric compressor to a steering wheel, does not require the prior art to perform an additional method step nor does it require additional structure beyond claim 10. Therefore, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 12, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and further teaches where an orientation of the electric compressor [accessory component 70, Figure 2; 0054] relative to the electric traction motor [motor generator 12, Figure 2] does not excite the roll and pitch rotational modes of the electric traction motor [where the accessory component functions as a mass damper to provide damping vibrations in direction A, Figure 2, where the gravity center of the accessory component is located at a position separated from the first end surface portion in the motor centerline direction, and the moment about the coupling portion of the transaxle becomes larger so that a vibration or swing in a direction (radial direction) perpendicular to the motor centerline can more effectively be damped; 0019].
Regarding Claim 13, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10, and does not teach where the electric compressor includes a compressor scroll configured to rotate about the axial direction.
However, Song teaches a vertical compressor for vehicles [0001] where the electric compressor [an electric vertical compressor, Figure 1; 0008] where the electric compressor includes a compressor scroll [moving scroll 15, Figure 2; 0063] configured to rotate about the axial direction [where the motor mechanism is used to drive the moving scroll 15 relative to stationary scroll 2, Figure 2; 0068] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, a vertical compressor, for another, a horizontal compressor, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing stable lubricating pool inside the compressor [Song, 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the electric compressor includes a compressor scroll configured to rotate about the axial direction view of the teachings of Song where the substitution of an element for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing stable lubricating pool inside the compressor [Song, 0003].
Regarding Claim 15, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and further teaches coupling the electric compressor [accessory component 70, Figure 9] to the electric traction motor [electric drive unit 10, Figure 9] via one or more non-elastomeric mounts [where attachment members 72 are without interposing the elastic body 74, Figure 9; 0063].
Regarding Claim 16, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and further teaches coupling the electric traction motor [electric drive unit 10, Figure 12] is coupled to the frame [vehicle body; 0053] via one or more elastomeric mounts [where the electric drive unit 10 is disposed on a vehicle body via a rubber mount; 0053, where Figure 12 includes the electric drive unit of Figure 2].
Regarding Claim 18, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17 and further teaches where the electrified vehicle [electric vehicle 8, Figure 1] is absent of an internal combustion engine [where the present disclosure can be applied to an electric vehicle without the fuel cell 18 in which the electric power can be supplied only from a battery; 0049].
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (US20190084403A1) in view of Kanno (US20120031689A1), Song (WO2018196485A1) and Hosoi (JP2013021829A) as applied to claim 1 and 10 above and in further view of Yano et al. (US20080219871A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the radial forces generated by the electric compressor are greater than the axial forces generated by the electric compressor.
However, Yano teaches a vertical type scroll compressor [0012] wherein the radial forces [where the diameter can be enlarged whereby radial direction force can be made relatively small; 0039] generated by the electric compressor [scroll compressor, Figure 1] are greater than the axial forces generated by the electric compressor [where the thrust forces, which act on the orbiting scroll 31 to upward and downward direction at the time of compression, are cancelled out, and the load in the thrust direction becomes substantially zero, so that the thrust bearing can be eliminated; 0038] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, symmetry in structure, to a known device, a vertical compressor, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., minimizing parts by eliminating need for a thrust bearing support [Yano; 0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the radial forces generated by the electric compressor are greater than the axial forces generated by the electric compressor in view of the teachings of Yano where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., minimizing parts by eliminating need for a thrust bearing support [Yano; 0038].
Regarding Claim 14, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and further does not teach where the radial forces generated by the electric compressor are greater than the axial forces generated by the electric compressor.
H owever, Yano teaches a vertical type scroll compressor [0012] wherein the radial forces [where the diameter can be enlarged whereby radial direction force can be made relatively small; 0039] generated by the electric compressor [scroll compressor, Figure 1] are greater than the axial forces generated by the electric compressor [where the thrust forces, which act on the orbiting scroll 31 to upward and downward direction at the time of compression, are cancelled out, and the load in the thrust direction becomes substantially zero, so that the thrust bearing can be eliminated; 0038] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, symmetry in structure, to a known device, a vertical compressor, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., minimizing parts by eliminating need for a thrust bearing support [Yano; 0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the radial forces generated by the electric compressor are greater than the axial forces generated by the electric compressor in view of the teachings of Yano where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., minimizing parts by eliminating need for a thrust bearing support [Yano; 0038].
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (US20190084403A1) in view of Kanno (US20120031689A1), Song (WO2018196485A1) and Hosoi (JP2013021829A) as applied to claim 1 and 10 above and in further view of Takahashi (WO2023008048A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the coolant loop where the compressor is configured to compress a refrigerant [refer to the rejection of claim 1 above; where a motor configured to compress the refrigerant in the compression chamber with a moving scroll 15; 0068 of Song] but does not teach where the cooling loop further includes a condenser, an expansion device, and an evaporator.
However, Takahashi teaches a thermal cycle system, including an air conditioning system and a cooling system in a vehicle [0001] wherein the coolant loop [where the air conditioning system and the cooling system for the electrically driven unit are arranged along the single circulation path, Figure 1A; 0020] further includes a condenser [heat exchanger 311, Figure 1A], an expansion device [expansion valve 502, Figure 1A], and an evaporator [heat exchanger 321, Figure 1A] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, vapor compression, to a known device, air conditioning coolant loop, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., reducing power consumption compared to PTC type heater configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the coolant loop further includes a condenser, an expansion device, and an evaporator in view of the teachings of Takahashi where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., reducing power consumption compared to PTC type heater configurations.
Regarding Claim 17, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and further teaches providing the coolant loop where the compressor is configured to compress a refrigerant [refer to the rejection of claim 10 above; where a motor configured to compress the refrigerant in the compression chamber with a moving scroll 15; 0068 of Song] but does not teach where the cooling loop further includes a condenser, an expansion device, and an evaporator.
However, Takahashi teaches a thermal cycle system, including an air conditioning system and a cooling system in a vehicle [0001] wherein the coolant loop [where the air conditioning system and the cooling system for the electrically driven unit are arranged along the single circulation path, Figure 1A; 0020] further includes a condenser [heat exchanger 311, Figure 1A], an expansion device [expansion valve 502, Figure 1A], and an evaporator [heat exchanger 321, Figure 1A] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, vapor compression, to a known device, air conditioning coolant loop, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., reducing power consumption compared to PTC type heater configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the coolant loop further includes a condenser, an expansion device, and an evaporator in view of the teachings of Takahashi where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., reducing power consumption compared to PTC type heater configurations.
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (US20190084403A1) in view of Kanno (US20120031689A1), Song (WO2018196485A1) and Hosoi (JP2013021829A) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Qian (CN111310380A).
Regarding Claim 19, Nishikawa, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and further teaches where coupling the electric traction motor [electric drive unit 10, Figure 2] to the frame [vehicle body;0053] comprises coupling the electric traction motor to the frame via one or more elastomeric mounts [where the electric drive unit 10 is disposed on a vehicle body via a rubber mount; 0053, where Figure 12 includes the electric drive unit of Figure 2], and does not teach the method further comprising: tuning a stiffness of the one or more elastomeric mounts such that the roll, pitch, and yaw rotational modes of the electric traction motor are decoupled.
However, Qian teaches a design and development method for a powertrain suspension rubber bushing structure for electric vehicles [0001] including tuning a stiffness of the one or more elastomeric mounts [step 1, determine the triaxial stiffness of each rubber mount, step 2: calculate the sixth rigid body modes and the decoupling rates in six directions under the initial stiffness values, step 3: set a reasonable rigid body mode distribution for the power train, and step 4: optimize using the busing stiffness of each rubber suspension; 0008-0011] such that the roll, pitch, and yaw rotational modes of the electric traction motor are decoupled [where in step two ensure the vibration decoupling of the motor powertrain mounting system in the three around-the-cylinder coordinates and the three principal coordinate parallel directions, where the decoupling rate of the suspension system should be maximized; 0030] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, stiffness, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., minimizing vibration transmission to the vehicle body and thereby improving the comfort of the vehicle [Qian;0026]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have tuning a stiffness of the one or more elastomeric mounts such that the roll, pitch, and yaw rotational modes of the electric traction motor are decoupled.in view of the teachings of Qian where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., minimizing vibration transmission to the vehicle body and thereby improving the comfort of the vehicle [Qian;0026]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 2 and 11, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Nishikawa (US20190084403A1) and Hosoi (JP2013021829A), where Nishikawa teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the electrified where the Y- axis is generally arranged in a cross-car direction [vehicle width direction, Figure 2], wherein the electric traction motor is generally cylindrical [where the motor generator 12 is a synchronous motor and includes a stator 30 and a rotor 32 having an annular shape respectively, and concentric with the first axis S1, Figure 2; 0051] and includes an outer circumferential surface [outer circumferential of case 16, as seen in Figure 2 and Figure 4] extending between a first end and a second end [from 24a to 22a, Figure 2], wherein the electric compressor is coupled to the outer circumferential surface of the electric traction motor [where in an alternative embodiment, the accessory component can be attached to the outer circumferential surface of the case as in the conventional technique; 0044] and Hosoi teaches a method for manufacturing an electric motor [0001] where the center of gravity of the electric traction motor [electric motor 1, Figure 1] is along the center of rotation of the electric traction motor [where the center of gravity G of the rotor body 5a and the rotation center O are approximately in coincidence, Figure 7; 0041] but the combined teachings do not teach where the electric compressor is located such that a center of gravity (COG) of the electric compressor has the same Z- and Y- coordinates as a COG of the electric traction motor, wherein the electric traction motor is generally cylindrical and includes an outer circumferential surface extending between a first end and a second end, wherein the electric compressor is coupled to the outer circumferential surface of the electric traction motor. Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and dependent claims 2 and 11 with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 of the remarks filed 7/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation, 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection, regarding “battery system” have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 8-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the term “battery system” has a structural definition well known to those of skill in the art. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding to applicant' s argument that the term “battery system” should not invoke 112f, the Examiner disagrees. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a battery system could include more than a battery. The claim language uses a generic placeholder, “system,” coupled with functional language (“configured to power an electric traction motor to generate and transfer drive torque to a driveline”), without reciting sufficient structure in the Specification. Further, the term “system” is merely a nonce word of “non-structural generic placeholder” equivalent to the term “means” because it fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and, in the context of claim 1, invokes § 112(f). Accordingly, the interpretation of record is considered proper and remains.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, of the remarks filed 7/14/2026 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Amended claim 10 recites feature similar to amended claim 1.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-9 and 11-19 except for their dependence upon claim 1 and claim 10. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bailey, B. How to Use Motor Analyses to Solve Vibration Issues, Pumps&Systems, June 2022, [retrieved on 4/14/2026], Retrieved from <https://www.pumpsandsystems.com/how-use-motor-analyses-solve-vibration-issues> . Bailey discusses how resonance issues are inherent to the motor design and how natural frequencies are characteristics of the structure. Any motor will vibrate when operated at their critical speed and therefore lateral critical speed analysis and torsional critical speed analysis is important to determine operating limitations.
Zhao, J., Basics of Modal Testing and Analysis, Section One, Crystal Instrument, July 2017, [retrieved on 4/13/2026]. Retrieved from < https://www.crystalinstruments.com/basics-of-structural-vibration-testing-and-analysis >. Zhao discusses how mode shapes are a way to characterize vibration of a structure under excitation, p.16. Zhao discusses how under excitation a structure, e.g. a beam, will deform and vibrate per different mode shapes depending on the frequency applied and mounting. Theoretically, there are an infinite number of resonant frequency and mode shapes, p.8.
Chen, W. J. Practical rotordynamics and fluid film bearing design, Chapter 6 Rotordynamic Modeling and Analysis, 2012, [retrieved on 4/10/2026] Retrieved from <https://dyrobes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/book_pract_rdffbd_Chapter-6.pdf>. Chen discusses how the dynamic response of a system, e.g. vibration, can be generalized with a coordinate system where, when the natural frequency is excited, the system response will manifest in regards to rotation as torsional (i.e., roll direction) and lateral (i.e., yaw direction and pitch direction) vibration.
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 KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights