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 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.
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:
“a compression mechanism” in claim 1, line 2, and claim 7, line 2 interpreted as “a scroll compression mechanism” as taught in ¶ 23 (with “scroll” in this context in combination with a driving motor defining sufficient structure to perform the recited function of “compression”) and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 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.
In lines 1-2 of claim 1, there is recited “a metal housing in which a motor and a compression mechanism are built”. It is not clear from this phrasing whether it positively recites the presence of the compressor and motor (equivalent to “in which a motor and a compressor are disposed”) or recites the compressor and motor as a matter of intended use (equivalent to “in which a compressor and a motor are installed” or “are assembled” as teachings of the activity rather than placement of the components), with each also being potentially interpreted as a recitation of intended use regarding the building of the components in the housing compared to the installation of pre-built components. The claim further recites “an inverter that drives the motor”, positively reciting this component, but it remains unclear whether this recitation is to be taken as also positively reciting the motor or as a recitation of intended use, teaching the inverter’s use with a component which is not included within the recited invention.
The preamble teaches of claim 1 teaches the invention as “an inverter-integrated electric compressor”, suggesting the compression mechanism to be required structure rather than a recitation of intended use, but even taking thig to be the case, it is unclear what effect the term “built” has on the scope of the claim and the claim would remain indefinite. For these reasons, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Further, line 5 of claim 1 teaches that the cover includes “a shell-shaped upper wall portion”. The term “shell-shaped” does not convey a specific or identifiable shape as a “shell” may be formed in a variety of shapes, even confining consideration to the context of a cover or casing of a compressor or compression system (i.e. setting aside natural shells such as a hinged clam shell or domed turtle shell or the tipped cylinder shape of an artillery shell). By way of example:
US Publication No 2021/0010715 to Davtyan teaches in fig. 7, shown below, and ¶¶ 55-56, a compressor (5) enclosed within a “rigid metal shell 30”, constructed as a rectangular prism having sides 32, 34, 36, and 38 and a “shell cap 42”.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
730
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
US Patent No. 5,685,166 to Li teaches in fig. 2, shown above, an in col. 2, lines 9-44, an air conditioner having two side-by-side rectangular compartments (compressor chamber 11 in which a compressor 3 is installed and a and condenser chamber 12 in which a condenser 5 is installed) and teaches a shell (2) provided as one face of each of these chambers, the shell forming three perpendicular sides of the rectangular air conditioner housing rather than five sides taught by Davtyan.
PNG
media_image3.png
650
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
WIPO Publication No. 2018/178854 A1 to Bei et al. teaches in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, an air conditioner unit comprising an outer shell (23) containing components of the air conditioner, including a compressor (not shown but taught in ¶ 33), the shell formed approximately rectangular, but having heavily rounded edges at both the vertical corners and the upper horizontal corners.
PNG
media_image4.png
700
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2022/0090829 A1 to Lee et al. teaches in fig. 6, shown above, and in ¶ 118, a compressor having a shell (1) which contains both a motor (including a rotor 2 and a stator 4) and a compressor pump assembly (7), the shell of Li being roughly cylindrical in shape.
As shown by these references, a “shell” can indicate a broad range of shapes even if confined to the context of refrigeration compressors. For this reason, the shape required of the upper wall portion by the teaching that it is “shell-shaped” cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 2 teaches that “a curvature radius of the arch of the cover” is set according to particularly properties. Claim 1 from which claim 2 depends teaches in lines 9-12 that a natural frequency of the cover is shifted… by adjusting a curvature radius of an arch… and/or an angle at which the vertical wall portion rises”. Because claim 2 uses the indefinite article “a” in the teaching of “a curvature radius” rather than “the” or “said”, it is unclear whether it refers to the same curvature radius of the arch recited in claim 1 or if a cover having one curvature set to shift the natural frequency of the cover as taught in claim 1, and a different curvature of a different point or portion set according to the teachings of claim 2 would fall within the claim’s scope. For this reason, the scope of claim 2 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Further, claim 1 uses “and/or” in the passage which refers to the curvature radius and thus does not require the limitations recited for this property (for example, in a system where only the angle pf the vertical; wall portion is set to shift the natural frequency). Because claim 2 recites further properties for a parameter which is not required by claim 1 from which it depends, it is unclear if the scope of claim 2 requires the curvature radius as taught in claim 1, or if the claim is to be taken as limitation only of devices which already include the curvature radius of claim 1 (that is, whether a system of claim 1 including only the limitations regarding the angle of the vertical portion would be taken as falling within the scope of claim 2 as well because the limitations regarding the curvature radius are presented as optional within claim 1). For this reason, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 2 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and is interpreted so that claim 2 requires that the natural frequency be shifted by adjustment of the curvature in addition to the limitations of claim itself (without limiting the claim to exclude a case in which the angle of the vertical wall is also adjusted to shift the natural frequency).
Similar to claim 2, claims 3 and 4 present limitations drawn only to the curvature radius of the arch and claim 5 presents limitation drawn only to the angle of the vertical wall. For the same reasons discussed above with regard to claim 2, each of these claims has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 3 and 4 have also been interpreted as discussed above with regard to claim 2 to include adjustment of the curvature radius. Likewise, claim 5 is interpreted as requiring that the angle of the vertical wall be adjusted to shift the natural frequency of the cover (without limiting the claim to exclude a case in which the radius of curvature is also adjusted).
Claim 5 teaches that “an angle at which the vertical wall portion rises from the seal flange portion ranges from an angle of 30º to an angle of 75º, inclusive”. Claim 1 from which claim 5 depends teaches in lines 11-12 “an angle at which the vertical wall portion rises from the seal flange portion”. The use of the indefinite article “an” in claim 5 rather than “the” or “said”, it is unclear whether it refers to the same angle of the wall recited in claim 1 or if a wall having one angle set to shift the natural frequency of the cover as taught in claim 1, and a different angle set according to the teachings of claim 5 would fall within the claim’s scope. For this reason, the scope of claim 5 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Further, the teaching in claim 5 that the angle of the wall “ranges” between two values does not clearly indicate whether the wall has a single angle (being taught as “an angle”) which falls within the range, or must “range” between different angles (for example at different horizontal positions along the vertical wall). Further, the numbers recited make it unclear whether the angle or angles of the wall are required to simply fall between the values of 30º and 75º or if the range of angles is required to extend fully (and inclusively) from 30º to 75º (that is, having a variable angle). For this reason, the structure required by claim 5 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 6 teaches that “a height dimension of the cover ranges from 8 mm to 20 mm, inclusive”. It isn’t clear from the phrasing of this recitation whether the cover is required to have a single height (or at least one height) which is within the claimed range, or to have a plurality of heights covering the scope of the range. For example, it is clear that a cover having a range of heights (such as might result from a sloped or domed shape) with a smallest height of 8 mm and a greatest height of 20 mm would fall within the scope of the claim, but it is not clear whether a similarly shaped cover with a smallest height of 10 mm and a greatest height of 15 mm would fall within the scope (as the height falls within the range of 8 to 20 mm, but does not “range from 8 to 20 mm”). It is also unclear whether a cover having a single height, such as 15 mm (between 8 and 20 mm, but not “rang[ing] from 8 mm to 20 mm”) would fall within the scope. For this reason, the scope of claim 6 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For purposes of examination, claim 6 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the claim has been interpreted so that a cover for which at least “a height” falls within the claimed range (even if heights at other points do nor or the heights of the cover do not extend to the extremes of the range) is taken as falling within the claim’s scope.
Claim 7 teaches “a shell-shaped upper wall portion” and is rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons discussed above with regard to the equivalent recitation in claim 1.
Claim 7 teaches “a method for manufacturing an inverter-integrated electric compressor” and teaches in line 2 “a metal housing in which a motor and a compression mechanism are built”. As claim 6 is a method claim, it is not clear whether the verb “built” in this passage requires a method step of building the compression mechanism and motor within the housing or simply identifies the housing as one in which the motor and compression mechanism are capable of being built or have previously been built. For this reason, the affect of this recitation on the scope of claim 6 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Further, in lines 10-13 of claim 7, it is taught that “a natural frequency of the cover is shifted from a resonance point… by adjusting a curvature radius of an arch… and/or an angle at which the vertical wall portion rises…”. Because claim 7 recites “a method of manufacturing”, it is unclear whether this recitation requires steps of adjusting the curvature radius and/or angle to actually be adjusted (either physically such as by bending of the sheet metal of the cover or by adjustment of a previous design having a previous radius and/or angle such) or simply requires that the radius and/or angle differ from another hypothetical value for which the natural frequency would not be shifted from the resonance point. For this reason, the steps which are required to fall within the scope of the claimed method cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 7 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the claim has not been interpreted as requiring a step of actually adjusting (either physically or in a pre-construction design) the radius and/or angle and thus, but extension does not require the pre-existence of a non-adjust version of the cover and has been taken only as requiring that the natural frequency differs from the resonance point of a hypothetical non-adjusted cover.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including the cover’s natural frequency being shifted (i.e. differing) from a resonance point of vibromotive force of the compression mechanism and motor by adjustment in either the curvature radius of the upper wall or an angle of the vertical wall portion. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action. Specifically, the independent claims have been rejected based on recitations of the compression mechanism and motor being “built” in the housing and of the upper wall portion being “shell-shaped”, as well as language regarding the method of claim 7 which may be interpreted to recite required method steps or which may present only descriptions of the structure of the system to be manufactured. Further, the dependent claims have been rejected as indefinite based on a number of further issues set forth above. Therefore, upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 5,428,965 to Grunwald et al. teaches in col. 1, lines 18-61, that for refrigeration devices, the cabinet or housing and frame members in which the device and the components thereof are disposed are known to have various natural or resonant frequencies for which vibrations generated a motor of the refrigeration system may cause vibrations leading to excessive noise and that, because such motors operate at varying frequencies, it is possible for the frequency produced to become equal to one of the resonant frequencies during operation, resulting in excessive noise. Grunwald teaches a feedback control loop for the motor or motors of a refrigeration device according to their invention for operating the motor(s) at varying speeds to meet demand via an average speed over time without operating the motor at a resonant speed to cause excessive noise, but does not teach the modification of the housing in which the components are installed to shift a natural frequency away from a resonance point as taught in the instant independent claims.
PNG
media_image5.png
372
476
media_image5.png
Greyscale
WIPO Publication No. 2023/248716 A1 to Shimada, for which US Publication No. 2025/0357815 A1 is presented as an English-language equivalent, teaches in fig. 1, shown above, an electric compressor (1) (taught in ¶ 40 as an “inverter-integrated electric compressor”) having a housing (2) divided into a motor chamber (4) and an inverter accommodating portion (6), a scroll compression mechanism (7) being disposed in the motor chamber (4). Sanden does not teach the specific construction of the housing recited in the instant independent claims, including the “shell-shaped” upper wall portion and vertical wall portion, or the adjustment of one or both of these elements to shift a natural frequency of the housing away from a resonance point.
PNG
media_image6.png
528
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2008/0116838 A1 to Hattori teaches in figs. 1 and 2, shown above and below, respectively, and in ¶¶ 67-70 an inverter-integrated electric compressor (1) having a housing (2) which includes a motor housing (3) and an inverter storage box (11) for housing an inverter apparatus (22), the inverter storage box (11) having a plurality of vertical walls (as shown in fig. 3) and a lid (18) covering a top of the box and secured with screws. Hatori teaches in ¶ 93 that a metal plate (23) of the inverter box (11) and on which the inverter apparatus (22) is bent to form ribs or protrusions (33) at both ends to increase its stiffness and natural frequency to reduce resonation and vibration of the inverter apparatus (22). Hatori does not teach the adaptations taught in the instant independent claims for increasing the natural frequency of the cover, including the adjustment of a curvature radius of the lid or an angle of the vertical walls.
PNG
media_image7.png
782
426
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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 (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
