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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 07 April 2026 has been entered. New claim 5 has been added. Claims 1-5 are pending in the application.
Newly cited references were relied upon in this action so the action is made non-final.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020-007910 A to Ogawa et al. (Ogawa) in view of JP 2019/112987 A to Takabe. Machine translations of both references were relied upon for the basis of this rejection (the translation of Takabe being previously provided).
In reference to claim 1, Ogawa discloses an electric compressor comprising: a stator housing (10; Figs. 1-19) in a cylindrical shape having one end opened (closed by element 60); and a rear casing (60) joined to an opening of the stator housing, wherein a stator (21) of a motor is housed from the opening of the stator housing (see Figs.), and the stator is fixed to an inner surface of the stator housing by shrink fitting (interpreted as a product-by-process; however, see par. 0017), the electric compressor includes a plurality of shrink-fit fixing surfaces (inner wall of 10) formed on the inner surface of the stator housing and to which the stator is fixed (par. 0017), a gasket sealing surface (at symbol 63), and a plurality of ribs (92) formed on the opening side of an outer surface of the stator housing corresponding to the shrink-fit fixing surface (“corresponding” is interpreted as its plain meaning of “related” as the ribs are on the outside of the housing wall whereas the shrink-fit fixing surface is on the inside), but fails to explicitly disclose the gasket sealing surface is formed on an opening end surface of the stator housing. However, Takabe discloses a similar compressor comprising a stator housing (2; Fig. 1) and a rear casing (3) joined to an opening of the stator housing via a gasket (16). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the known gasket arrangement disclosed by Takabe for the known gasket arrangement of Ogawa. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see MPEP 2141).
In reference to claim 2, the modified Ogawa teaches the electric compressor according to claim 1, further comprising a center plate (Ogawa; 30) accommodated in the stator housing and positioned on the opening side of the motor, wherein a fitting surface (Ogawa; 15) to which the center plate is fitted is formed on an inner surface of the stator housing on the opening side of the shrink-fit fixing surface.
In reference to claim 3, the modified Ogawa teaches electric compressor according to claim 2, wherein a scroll compression mechanism (Ogawa; 40, 50) is provided in a space formed by the center plate and the rear casing (Ogawa; par. 0015).
In reference to claim 5, the modified Ogawa teaches the electric compressor according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of ribs is formed so as to protrude outward from the outer surface of the stator housing (see Ogawa; Fig. 15).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ogawa as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of JP 2016-220424 A to Iketaka (Iketaka). A machine translation (previously provided) was relied upon for the basis of this rejection.
In reference to claim 4, the modified Ogawa teaches the electric compressor according to claim 3, comprising a suction port (Ogawa; 13) formed at the other end portion of the stator housing and a refrigerant path (25, 34) communicating the suction port with a suction portion of the scroll compression mechanism (40, 50) but fails to explicitly disclose the refrigerant path formed between the shrink-fit fixing surfaces. However, Iketaka teaches a similar compressor comprising a suction port (16; Fig. 1) formed at the other end portion of the stator housing; and a refrigerant path (15) formed between the shrink-fit fixing surfaces and communicating the suction port with a suction portion of the scroll compression mechanism (exiting at 6). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the refrigerant path disclosed by Iketaka into the compressor of the modified Takabe. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as refrigerant flowing through the path advantageously provides for cooling, as taught by Iketaka (pp. 0038-0039)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MATTHIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5168. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am - 6pm Pacific Time.
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, Mark Laurenzi III can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/JONATHAN R MATTHIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
23 April 2026
Prosecution Insights