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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on January 22, 2026 is acceptable. The specification objections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YODA (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2004-197687 A, a machine translation was provided with the foreign reference in the IDS filed on 10/31/2025, and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, YODA discloses: a compressor (1) comprising:
a casing (70) that is horizontally elongated or vertically elongated (see Figure 1 that shows horizontally elongated);
an electric motor (10, 11, 16; 71, 73) housed in the casing (see Figure 1);
a compression mechanism (20) (see Figure 1, ¶0011) configured to be driven by the electric motor to compress a refrigerant (see ¶0010);
a plurality of supporting portions arranged between an inner peripheral surface of the casing and an outer surface of the electric motor (see Figure 4 that shows a plurality of supporting portions, where the different supporting portions have either a notch (72) or a cutout (74)), the plurality of supporting portions being configured to support the electric motor in the casing (see Figure 4, ¶0005); and
a reduction mechanism provided in the casing (see Figure 4, where the reduction mechanism is that the motor is surrounded),
wherein a plurality of predetermined spaces (72, 72) are formed between the inner surface of the casing and the outer surface of the electric motor (see Figure 4), the plurality of predetermined spaces being separated by the supporting portions (see Figure 4),
wherein the reduction mechanism is configured to reduce a resonant mode that is excited in the plurality of predetermined spaces by operation of the electric motor (the claimed limitation directed to “the reduction mechanism is configured to reduce a resonant mode that is excited in the plurality of predetermined spaces by operation of the electric motor”, is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. 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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, YODA is capable of performing the claimed function since the stator appears to have significant mass due to smaller openings (72, 74), and therefore, mass of a part changes the resonant mode, and therefore, YODA meets the functional claim limitation). and
wherein in a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the casing, the plurality of predetermined spaces are formed asymmetrically with respect to a plane of symmetry passing through a cylindrical axis center of the casing (see Figure 4, where the different sections are asymmetrical due to different size of the supporting portions that are defined between openings (72, and 74).
Regarding claim 3, YODA discloses: the reduction mechanism includes the plurality of supporting portions arranged so that all the predetermined spaces have different volumes (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, YODA discloses: the supporting portions are formed on the inner peripheral surface of the casing (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, YODA discloses: in the reduction mechanism, at least one of the plurality of predetermined spaces is different in circumferential length from the other predetermined spaces (see Figure 4 where there are different lengths between (72 and 74) versus (72 and 72)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the compressor of YODA in view of KURITA (Taiwan Patent Publication TW I639770 B, a machine translation is provided with the foreign patent publication in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 15, YODA discloses: the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose the electric motor is driven at a variable frequency.
Regarding claim 15, KURITA teaches: the electric motor is driven at a variable frequency (see Page 3 under the First Embodiment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the electric motor is driven at a variable frequency in the compressor of YODA, in order to adjust the operating capacity of the compressor (see Page 3 under the First Embodiment of KURITA).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YODA in view of NORIO (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2013-002288 A, a machine translation was provided with the foreign reference in the IDS filed on 9/27/2024 and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 16, YODA discloses: the casing (2, 3, 4, 5) includes a cylinder (21), however fails to disclose the compression mechanism includes a screw rotor inserted into the cylinder and having a screw groove, and a gate rotor meshing with the screw groove, and in the cylinder, a compression chamber is formed by the gate rotor and the screw groove, since the compressor is a vane compressor.
Regarding claim 16, NORIO teaches: the casing includes a cylinder (16) (see Figure 1),
the compression mechanism includes
a screw rotor (40) inserted into the cylinder and having a screw groove (see Figures 1-3, and 5), and
a gate rotor (50) meshing with the screw groove (see Figures 1-3 and 5), and
in the cylinder, a compression chamber is formed by the gate rotor and the screw groove (see Figures 1-3 and 5, ¶0059-¶0063).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have swapped the compression mechanism in the compressor of YODA, since a substitution of one known element (i.e. a vane compressor) for another known element (i.e. the compression mechanism is a screw and gate compression mechanism that includes a screw rotor inserted into the cylinder and having a screw groove, and a gate rotor meshing with the screw groove, and in the cylinder, a compression chamber is formed by the gate rotor and the screw groove) requires only routine skill in the art and would have produced predictable results (i.e. compression of the refrigerant).
Regarding claim 17, NORIO further teaches: the screw groove includes three screw grooves (¶0029, see Figures 3 and 5, NORIO discloses having six screw grooves and therefore, meets the limitation of having three screw grooves, since the limitation does not limit that the compressor has only three screw grooves).
Regarding claim 18, NORIO further teaches: the screw groove includes six screw grooves (¶0029, see Figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 19, NORIO further teaches: the screw rotor includes one screw rotor, two screw rotors, or three screw rotors (see Figures 3 and 5 that shows one screw rotor).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 and the claims that depend from it have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection based on applicant’s amendment. In addition, the new grounds of rejection is based on prior art from the IDS filed on October 31, 2025.
Please see the rejection above that utilizes a new rejection, where the argued limitations are disclosed in the new prior art of YODA.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on October 31, 2025 also is the basis of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights