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 Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “System” should be deleted and in its placed the following should be inserted: “A system”
In claims 2-9, line 1, “System” should be deleted and in its place the following should be inserted: “The system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-8 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 6. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 6-8 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 claim 6, line 2, the limitation “configured for” is vague and indefinite. Is the rotor part of an asynchronous induction motor or not? What structure is being claimed?
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,359,657. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,359,657. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 3 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,359,657. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 4 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,359,657. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 5 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,359,657. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, US PGPub 2005/0115771 in view of Valbjorn et al., US Patent 3,560,116.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a compressor that discloses a housing (Figure 1, housing 10); an electric motor comprising a rotor (Rotor 31) and a stator (Stator 32), the rotor comprising at least one inner wall (Wall within the rotor 31); an oil pump (Pump 51) and an oil reservoir arranged inside the housing (Evident of the sump within housing 10); a rotary shaft as an integral part of the electric motor (Shaft 40); a compressor block configured to house, at least partially, the rotary shaft (Compressor 20); the rotary shaft supported by at least one radial bearing (Bearing 43); the rotary axis comprising a lower region (end towards the sump), an upper region (end towards the compressor) and a rotating surface (middle area of the shaft 40); wherein the rotating shaft has at least one concavity that extends over part of the rotating surface in contact with the internal surface of the rotor (Pattern 54 along the outer surface of the shaft 40) and at least one restrictor hole which communicates with the internal region of the rotating shaft and with the concavity (Feed hole 55); the rotor comprises a circumferential channel (Channel being the cavity within the top of the rotor at about 52a as seen in Figure 1). Shin does not specify the rotor comprises at least one radial channel extending through the inner wall of the rotor; the radial channel is arranged around the circumferential channel; the circumferential channel and the radial channel communicating with the concavity; the circumferential channel, the radial channel and the concavity transport oil for cooling the upper part of the rotor and the stator.
PNG
media_image2.png
698
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Valbjorn et al., teaches a rotor lubricating and cooling structure that discloses a rotor comprising at least one radial channel extending through the inner wall of the rotor (figure 3, channel 43 per Column 5 Lines 20-27). The resultant combination would place these radial channels in communication with the circumferential channel of Shin therefore resulting in a combination featuring the radial channel is arranged around the circumferential channel; the circumferential channel and the radial channel communicating with the concavity; the circumferential channel, the radial channel and the concavity transport oil for cooling the upper part of the rotor and the stator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil flow paths of Shin with the radial channels of Valbjorn et al. to further increase the cooling and lubrication of the rotor.
Regarding claim 2, Shin in view of Valbjorn et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, where the combination of Shin and Val would further disclose that the concavity has a helicoid shape (Evident from Figure 1 of Shin).
Regarding claim 3, Shin in view of Valbjorn et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, where the combination of Shin and Val would further disclose that the circumferential channel has an external diameter smaller than the external diameter of the rotating shaft housing in the compressor block (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the bearing area of Shin is sized to prevent the shaft from falling through).
Regarding claim 4, Shin in view of Valbjorn et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, where the combination of Shin and Val would further disclose that the radial channel outlet is inscribed in a circle with a diameter larger than the outer diameter of the rotating shaft housing in the compressor block (Shin Figure 1 with the teachings of Val will place the radial openings in the cavity of the upper end of the rotor of Shin).
Regarding claim 5, Shin discloses a compressor that discloses a housing (Figure 1, housing 10); an electric motor comprising a rotor (Rotor 31) and a stator (Stator 32), the rotor comprising at least one inner wall (Wall within the rotor 31); an oil pump (Pump 51) and an oil reservoir arranged inside the housing (Evident of the sump within housing 10); a rotating shaft as an integral part of the electric motor (Shaft 40); a compressor block capable of housing, at least partially, the rotating shaft (Compressor 20); the rotating shaft supported by at least one radial bearing (Bearing 43); the rotary axis comprising a lower region (end towards the sump), an upper region (end towards the compressor) and a rotating surface (middle area of the shaft 40); characterized in that the rotor has a circumferential channel (Channel being the cavity within the top of the rotor at about 52a as seen in Figure 1); wherein the circumferential channel extends over at least part of the inner wall of the rotor (Evident from Figure 1); wherein the circumferential channel is located at an intermediate level between the upper part of the oil pump and the lower region of the rotating shaft (Evident from Figure 1). Shin does not disclose that the rotor has at least one longitudinal channel arranged and has at least one circumferential channel that is in communication with the circumferential channel in the longitudinal direction; and wherein the circumferential channel and the longitudinal channel carry oil for cooling the upper part of the rotor and the stator; and a partial juxtaposition between the entrance of the radial channel and the outer diameter of the circumferential channel.
Val teaches a rotor lubricating and cooling structure that discloses a rotor comprising at least one longitudinal channel extending through the inner wall of the rotor (figure 3, channel 43 per Column 5 Lines 20-27). The resultant combination would place these longitudinal channels in communication with the circumferential channel in a longitudinal direction of Shin therefore resulting at least one longitudinal channel arranged and has at least one circumferential channel that is in communication with the circumferential channel in the longitudinal direction; and wherein the circumferential channel and the longitudinal channel carry oil for cooling the upper part of the rotor and the stator; and a partial juxtaposition between the entrance of the radial channel and the outer diameter of the circumferential channel (Partial juxtaposition seen in Figure 4 of Val).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil flow paths of Shin with the radial channels of Valbjorn et al. to further increase the cooling and lubrication of the rotor.
Regarding claim 6, Shin in view of Valbjorn et al. discloses the system according to claims 1 and 5. The limitation “wherein the radial channels and circumferential channel are formed by stacking a plurality of magnetic steel laminations, each lamination being rotated by a composite angle relative to the preceding lamination, wherein the composite angle R comprises a lamination skew angle based on a skew angle a defined by the greater of the stator slot pitch and rotor slot pitch, and an interlock angle y, defined by the number and arrangement of rotor bars, and wherein the number of radial channels nr is selected as an integer near to 360 divided by B” is a product by process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, Shin in view of Valbjorn et al. discloses the system according to claim 6. The limitation “wherein each lamination includes circular cutouts equally spaced around the circumferential channel, the circular cutouts configured such that, when the laminations are stacked and angularly aligned, the circular cutouts form continuous radial channels extending radially outward from the circumferential channel toward the rotor periphery” is a product by process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, Shin in view of Valbjorn et al. discloses the system according to claim 6 or 7. The limitation “wherein the stacking orientation of each lamination is always performed by rotating each lamination in the same angular direction as the skewed rotor bar slots, and the result arrangement will differ depending on the relationship between 6 and @:, the radial channel pitch visually appears to follow the same angular direction as the skewed rotor bar slots; and If although each lamination is still rotated in the same direction, the radial channel pitch visually appear stacked in the opposite angular direction relative to the skewed rotor bar slots.” is a product by process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 9, Shin in view of Valbjorn et al. discloses the system according to claim 8. The limitation “wherein the radial channel pitch is selected so the radial channels appear oriented opposite the rotor rotation direction, and wherein the radial channel pitch direction matches the pitch direction of the shaft concavity” is a product by process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights