vs! “111%
`\.\_:
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`15/406,208
`
`01/13/2017
`
`Hidenori KOBAYASHI
`
`20240.0055US01
`
`8812
`
`52835
`7590
`“mm”
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN,MUELLER&LARSON,P.C. —
`45 South Seventh Street
`BOBISH, CHRISTOPHER S
`Suite 2700
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402- 1683
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`3746
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/03/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/0r attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`PTOMail @hsml.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 15/406,208 KOBAYASHI ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER BOBISH $2215 3746
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/12/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s)_1 and3-9 is/are rejected.
`8)|:| Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.IXI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20171027
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/406,208
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3746
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`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.
`
`Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Haraki et al (US PGPub No. 2014/0308141) in view of Shore (US Patent No.
`
`2,324,434).
`
`Haraki teaches:
`
`limitations from claims 1, a sealed refrigerant compressor (100) comprising: a
`
`sealed container (101) in which lubricating oil (103) is reserved in a lower portion
`
`in an interior of the sealed container (see FIG. 1); an electric component (111)
`
`accommodated in the sealed container; and a compression component (117)
`
`accommodated in the sealed container and configured to be driven by the
`
`electric component (paragraphs 34-35), wherein the compression component
`
`includes a cylinder (137) disposed inside the sealed container to extend in a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/406,208
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3746
`
`direction crossing a vertical direction (FIG. 1), and a piston (133) which
`
`is reciprocatable inside the cylinder (paragraph 43), wherein the electric
`
`component includes a stator (113), and a rotor (115) having a lower surface
`
`facing an oil surface of the lubricating oil (FIG. 1), and the rotor has a shape in
`
`which a diameter of the rotor is larger than a length (L) of the rotor in a rotational
`
`axis direction thereof (see FIG. 1, 3B);
`
`Haraki does not teach balancing holes in the rotor;
`
`Shore teaches:
`
`limitations from claims 1 and 3, a compressor including a rotor (33), wherein a
`
`core of the rotor is provided with at least one balance hole (61) for adjusting a
`
`load balance during rotation of the rotor (Page 4 Lines 45-53); wherein the rotor
`
`includes a permanent magnet and does not include a magnet protective member
`
`covering an outer periphery of the permanent magnet provided in the core (see
`
`FIG.
`
`1 of Haraki), and wherein the at least one balance hole is located not to be
`
`line-symmetric or point symmetric with respect to a rotational axis of the rotor
`
`(see FIG. 2 of Shore); wherein the at least one balance hole (61) is provided in
`
`the core in such a manner that at least a part of the balance hole is located
`
`outward relative to the permanent magnet when viewed from the rotational axis
`
`direction of the rotor (see FIG. 2 of Shore wherein the holes 61 are located at a
`
`periphery of the rotor 33; furthermore it has been held that the rearrangement of
`
`parts is a matter of design choice in re Japikse, 161 F.2d 1619, 86 USPQ TC}
`
`(CCPA 1956), in this case the location of the holes changes the balance of the
`
`rotor and it would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose
`
`a location at any point in the rotor in order to balance the rotor weight);
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at
`
`the time the invention was filed to provide balancing holes in the rotor of Haraki
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/406,208
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3746
`
`as suggested by Shore, in order to balance the rotor to reduce wobble and
`
`vibration within the compressor.
`
`Shore further teaches:
`
`limitations from claim 5, wherein the at least one balance hole (61) extends in the
`
`rotational axis direction of the rotor (FIG. 1);
`
`limitations from claim 7, wherein a balance weight (41) is fastened to an upper
`
`surface of the rotor to adjust a load balance, and wherein the at least one
`
`balance hole is provided within a portion of the core of the rotor to which the
`
`balance weight is fastened. (see FIG. 1);
`
`limitations from claim 8, wherein the at least one balance hole (61) is a blind hole
`
`having a bottom surface which is set to be higher than an upper surface of the
`
`stator (FIG. 1);
`
`Haraki further teaches:
`
`limitations from claim 4, wherein the compression component is accommodated
`
`in the sealed container in such a manner that the compression component is
`
`located above the electric component (see FIG. 1);
`
`limitations from claim 9, a refrigeration device (paragraph 1) comprising a sealed
`
`refrigerant compressor (100) of claim 1;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/406,208
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3746
`
`Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraki et
`
`al (US PGPub No. 2014/0308141) in view of Shore (US Patent No. 2,324,434) as
`
`applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fukasaku et al (US PGPub No.
`
`2016/0294251).
`
`Haraki and Shore do not teach that the balancing holes are through holes,
`
`instead teaching blind holes (see FIG.
`
`1 of Shore);
`
`However, Fukasaku teaches:
`
`limitations from claim 6, a compressor (100) including: a compression component
`
`(130), an electric component comprising a stator (160) and a rotor (150); wherein
`
`a core of the rotor is provided with at least one balance hole (156-159H) for
`
`adjusting a load balance during rotation of the rotor ( FIG. 3, paragraphs 56-59);
`
`wherein the at least one balance hole extends in the rotational axis direction of
`
`the rotor (see FIG. 3); wherein the at least one balance hole is a through-hole
`
`(FIG. 6) and/or wherein the at least one balance hole is a blind hole (FIG. 3);
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at
`
`the time the invention was filed to form balancing holes in the rotor of Haraki as
`
`either blind holes or through holes as suggested by Fukasaku, in order to vary
`
`the material removed or the length of the weights inserted into the holes, thereby
`
`balancing the rotor.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/406,208
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3746
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 10/12/2017 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues that the prior art to Shore, which is relied upon to teach non-
`
`symmetric bore holes, would not be obvious to rely upon in modifying the compressor of
`
`Haraki. Specifically, applicant argues that Shore teaches a squirrel cage motor and
`
`therefore is not concerned with the effect the bores may have on a magnetically
`
`actuated rotor (i.e. Haraki). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
`
`The combination of Shore and Haraki is intended to teach the use of balancing
`
`holes in rotors of compressors, particularly the use of holes at non-symmetric positions
`
`to balance the rotor. The examiner agrees that different considerations for various
`
`compressor and compress-motor types may be necessary. However, the examiner
`
`maintains that those considerations involve only routine design choices for one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, in order to combine known features into a single device. Further
`
`the applicant has not provided particular support for the argument that non-symmetric
`
`holes (Shore) cannot be utilized in a magnetic rotor assembly (Haraki), or that such
`
`holes would be contrary to what Haraki teaches.
`
`Therefore the examiner maintains that the prior art teaches that balancing holes
`
`are known to be used in rotors of compressors, and that the holes may be of a non-
`
`symmetric, blind, and/or through-hole variety.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/406,208
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3746
`
`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
`
`CFR1.136(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
`
`extension fee 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 date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BOBISH whose telephone number is
`
`(571 )270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 9-5.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/406,208
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3746
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571 )272—71 18. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`/CHARLES FREAY/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
`
`/CHRISTOPHER BOBISH/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3746
`
`