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 the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of April 4, 2025 which amended claim 4 and added new claim 5.
Drawings
Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (note the discussion in paragraphs [0005] thru [0007]). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification should not make reference to the claims, see for example paragraphs [0011] thru [0013] .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1 and 2 “in which a motor is built” should be “in which a motor is mounted”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5 “and” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 after “plate,” “and a plurality of penetration holes,” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required. Note: this provides antecedent basis for the last line of the claim.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7 after “passes” “a penetration hole” should be replaced by “through at least one of the penetration holes”. Appropriate correction is required. Note: if the applicant intends each pin to be inserted through a corresponding penertration hole then claim should be amended to recite that.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8 “and is provided” should be “each pin being provided”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 after “claim 1,” “comprising a plurality of through-holes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 after “to a” “corresponding” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 “the insulator” should be “each said insulator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 “a periphery of each hermetic pin” should be “a periphery of the respective hermetic pin”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 should be rewritten as follows:
[Claim 3] The electric compressor according to claim 2, comprising a plurality of recesses, each recess corresponds a corresponding hermetic pin, each recess is formed around the corresponding through-hole in a face of the hermetic plate on the motor chamber side, and insulating resin located between each insulator and the hermetic plate is applied to an inside of each recess.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2 and 3 “the face on the motor chamber side” should be “a face on the motor chamber side”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (USPAP 2012/0087811) in view of Kinoshita et al (JP201405545A, cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 1, Yamada et al disclose an electric compressor (Fig. 1) comprising: a motor chamber (inside the rear housing 14) in which a motor (M) is built/mounted; an inverter accommodation portion (28) to which an inverter (29) that supplies power to the motor is attached; a partition wall (the top portion of housing 14 forms the partition wall and is labeled in the annotated Fig. 2 below) between the motor chamber and the inverter accommodation portion; a hermetic plate (31) attached to the partition wall on an inverter accommodation portion side; and a plurality of hermetic pins (35u,v,w) penetrating the hermetic plate and attached (via glass insulator 34u,v,w, see [0031]) to the hermetic plate, wherein each hermetic pin passes a penetration hole (labeled in the annotated drawing below) formed in the partition wall with the hermetic plate attached to the partition wall, the pins are provided from the inverter accommodation portion (labeled in the annotated drawing) to the motor chamber (labeled in the annotated drawing), and an individual insulator (46u,v,w made of rubber as described in [0035]) is attached around each hermetic pin on a motor chamber side, and a seal material (33) is interposed between the hermetic plate and the partition wall so as to surround the plurality of hermetic pins and the penetration hole(s).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamada et al teaches of the claimed structure with a single penetration hole (see the annotated figure above) but does not teach of a plurality of penetration holes. However, Kinoshita et al discloses a similar inverter driven compressor (see Fig. 1) and additionally discloses that there can be either a single opening (shown in annotated Fig. 1b below) or there can be a plurality of penetration holes (shown in annotated Fig. 2 below) accommodating the hermetic pins.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a plurality of penetration holes, as taught by Kinoshita et al, instead of a single penetration hole since single-hole and multi-hole arrangements are recognized as equivalence for their use in the power transmission art of inverter driven compressors and selection of either of these known equivalents to accommodate the hermetic pins would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
PNG
media_image2.png
344
188
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
360
203
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2015-183668 A (cited by the applicant, hereafter JP ‘668).
As set forth above Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed and additionally disclose the material of claim 2 including wherein each hermetic pin (35u,v,w) is attached to a through-hole (labeled in the annotated Fig. 2 of Yamada et al above) formed in the hermetic plate via a glass insulator (labeled in the annotated Fig. 2 of Yamada et al above) and a rubber insulator surrounding the glass insulator. Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al do not, however, teach that the insulator is attached in pressure contact with a periphery of each hermetic pin on the motor chamber side with respect to the glass.
JP ‘668 discloses a similar inverter driven electric compressor having (as shown in Figs. 5 and 6) a hermetic plate (12) having a plurality of hermetic pins (11) extending there through. A plurality of insulators (13 and the member mounted within the hermetic plate would also be recognized as an insulator, analogous to the glass insulator of Yamada et al), a hermetic gasket 14 and an insulator in the form of a rubber seal (16, labeled in the annotated drawing below, analogous to the rubber insulator of Yamada et al) in pressure contact with the hermetic pin (see the annotated Fig. 6 of JP ‘668 below).The rubber seal partially surrounds the insulating member 13 on the motor side and also extends to be in pressure contact with the pin.
PNG
media_image4.png
476
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the rubber insulators of Yamada et al extend around the end of the glass insulators to be in pressure contact against the pin, as taught by JP ‘668, in order to obtain the predictable result of creating more complete sealing along each pin, thus enhancing the reliability of the system. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al and JP ‘668 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Beinhaur et al (USPN 4,960,391) and Maegawa et al (USPN 2021/0344139).
As set forth above Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al and JP ‘668 discloses an electric compressor as claimed with JP ‘668 additionally teaching that a hermetic gasket is located between the hermetic plate and the partition wall. Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al and JP ‘668 do not discuss that there is a recess corresponding to an insulator attached to each hermetic pin is formed around the through-hole in a face of the hermetic plate on the motor chamber side, and insulating resin located between each insulator and the hermetic plate is applied to an inside of each recess.
Beinhaur et al discloses a similar hermetically sealed pin connection structure (see Figs. 1 & 3) including a partition wall (24) having a penetration hole (26). A plurality of pins (14) mounted to a hermetic plate (12) via a plurality of glass insulators (18). As shown in the annotated Fig. 3 below Beinhaur et al disclose that there is a hermetic plate having a recess (labeled Recess in the annotated figure below) corresponding to an insulator (labeled glass insulator) attached to each hermetic pin is formed around the through-hole in a face of the hermetic plate (labeled in the annotated Fig. 3), and an insulating member made of a material such as rubber (see col. 4 line 59) applied to an inside of the recess on the recess. Maegawa et al disclose a similar hermetic plate (11) having an insulating material (14) and discloses rubber, elastomer, plastic and resin materials as possible insulator materials (see paragraphs [0013] and [0059]).
PNG
media_image5.png
383
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a recess and an insulating member/layer within the recess as taught by Beinhaur et al to the motor side surface of the JP ‘668 hermetic plate in order to heat & seal insulate the interior surface of the hermetic plate where the pins extend thru the plate.
With regards to the insulating material being a resin, as noted in Maegawa et al rubber(such as in Beinhaur et al), elastomer, plastic and resins are common materials for such members. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the Beinhaur et al rubber insulating member of insulating resin, as taught by Maegawa et al, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al and JP ‘668 as applied to claim 2, or Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al, JP ‘668, Beinhaur et al and Maegawa et al as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Fukushima et al (USPN 11,417,983).
As set forth above each of Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al and JP ‘668 (as applied to claim 2) and Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al, JP ‘668, Beinhaur et al and Maegawa et al (as applied to claim 3) disclose the invention substantially a claimed but does not disclose that a projection (labeled in annotated Fig. 1b below) is formed around each through-hole (labeled in annotated Fig. 1b below) on a face of the hermetic plate (labeled in annotated Fig. 1b below) opposite to the face on the motor chamber side, and a silicon member is applied so as to cover each projection.
PNG
media_image6.png
286
709
media_image6.png
Greyscale
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have the glass insulators of Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al and JP ‘668 as applied to claim 2, or Yamada et al in view of Kinoshita et al, JP ‘668, Beinhaur et al and Maegawa et al as applied to claim 3 to form a projection in order to further insulate the pins and to add a silicon sealing member as taught by Fukushita et al in order to obtain the predictable result of creating an airtight terminal (see title of Fukushima et al) and thus create a more durable device. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bernauer, Abe et al and Itameri-Kinter et al disclose terminal structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
March 4, 2026