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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 15-20 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.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 20 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " a joining hole" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2, 4, and 6-7 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele et al (US 20210288532 A1) in view of Mitsui (US 20050077798 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Thiele teaches a rotor assembly comprising: a shaft being elongated and having two opposite ends (fig. 1, shaft 38); a core surrounding the shaft (fig. 2, rotor core 100) and including multiple core sheets stacked with one another and mounted to the shaft, each of the multiple core sheets having a first surface and a second surface facing opposite (fig. 2, stacked laminations 107); a shaft hole formed through the sheet body at a middle of the core sheet and mounted around the shaft (fig. 2, shaft opening 104); multiple tooth portions arranged around the shaft hole at angular intervals (fig. 2, pole 106) and spaced apart from one another to form multiple slots between the multiple tooth portions, each slot disposed between adjacent two of the multiple tooth portions (fig. 2, radial apertures 114); and multiple magnet channels arranged around the core at angular intervals and extending along the shaft, each of the magnet channels formed by the slots, of the multiple core sheets, aligning and communicating with one another (fig. 2 radial apertures 114); the shaft extending through the shaft holes of the multiple core sheets of the core (fig. 1, shaft 38); multiple permanent magnets respectively disposed in the multiple magnet channels of the core and arranged around the shaft at angular intervals (fig. 3, magnet 116), wherein an angle formed between each adjacent two of the multiple permanent magnets is larger than 0 degree and smaller than or equal to 90 degrees (fig. 2, 10 magnets divide the core having 36° between themselves); the multiple core sheets include multiple major core sheets stacked with one another (fig. 2, stacked laminations 107).
Thiele does not teach “each of the tooth portions of each of the multiple major core sheets has one single projection protruding from the first surface of the major core sheet to form a joining hole recessed in the second surface of the major core sheet; the one single projection of each of the tooth portions of each of the multiple major core sheets; two radial sides separating from the sheet body of the major core sheet and radially extending toward the shaft hole of the major core sheet and two tangential sides respectively arranged at opposite two ends of each of the two radial sides and connecting to the tooth portion; the one single projection of each of the multiple tooth portions of each of the major core sheets has a projection height from a top of the projection to the first surface of the major core sheet ranging from two to three times of the thickness of the sheet body of the major core sheet; the joining hole of each of the tooth portions of each of the multiple major core sheets is rectangular and extends toward the shaft hole of the major core sheet; the projections of the multiple tooth portions of one of adjacent two of the multiple major core sheets are respectively inserted into the joining holes of the multiple tooth portions of the other one of the adjacent two of the multiple major core sheets to stack with the projections of the multiple tooth portions of said the other one of the adjacent two of the multiple major core sheets.”
Mitsui teaches each of the tooth portions of each of the multiple major core sheets has one single projection protruding from the first surface of the major core sheet to form a joining hole recessed in the second surface of the major core sheet (fig. 19, outside caulking part); the one single projection of each of the tooth portions of each of the multiple major core sheets has two radial sides separating from the sheet body of the major core sheet and radially extending toward the shaft hole of the major core sheet (fig. 23-24 and 26-29 inside caulking part, length a) and two tangential sides respectively arranged at opposite two ends of each of the two radial sides and connecting to the tooth portion (fig. 23-24 and 26-29 inside caulking part length b); the one single projection of each of the multiple tooth portions of each of the major core sheets has a projection height from a top of the projection to the first surface of the major core sheet ranging from two to three times of the thickness of the sheet body of the major core sheet (fig. 30, sheets project at least 3 times their thickness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the rotor of Thiele with the caulking sections of Mitsui which span multiple plate layers and have a radial and tangential direction in order to further secure the rotor sheets together thereby increasing the rotor rigidity which helps to prevent vibrational damages to the rotor core.
With respect to claim 2, Thiele teaches wherein the multiple core sheets include at least one end core sheet disposed at an end of the core and stacked with the multiple major core sheets (fig. 5, bridge members 330a/b).
Thiele does not teach “each of the multiple tooth portions of each one of the at least one end core sheet has a joining hole formed through the tooth portion, being rectangular, and extending toward the shaft hole of the end core sheet; the projections of the multiple tooth portions of one of the multiple major core sheets being adjacent to one of the at least one end core sheet are respectively inserted into the joining holes of the multiple tooth portions of the end core sheet.”
Mitsui teaches each of the multiple tooth portions of each one of the at least one end core sheet has a joining hole formed through the tooth portion, being rectangular ,and extending toward the shaft hole of the end core sheet (fig. 23, steel plate 115-116); the projections of the multiple tooth portions of one of the multiple major core sheets being adjacent to one of the at least one end core sheet are respectively inserted into the joining holes of the multiple tooth portions of the end core sheet (see at least figure 23, steel plate 115-116 are at the end of the caulking part 127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the rotor of Thiele with the caulking sections of Mitsui which span multiple plate layers and have a radial and tangential direction in order to further secure the rotor sheets together thereby increasing the rotor rigidity which helps to prevent vibrational damages to the rotor core.
With respect to claim 4, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Thiele does not teach “the joining hole of each of the multiple tooth portions of each of the at1 least one end core sheet has a length extending toward the shaft hole of the end core sheet being three times of a width of said joining hole”
Mitsui teaches the joining hole of each of the multiple tooth portions of each of the at1 least one end core sheet has a length extending toward the shaft hole of the end core sheet being three times of a width of said joining hole (see at least figure 25, caulking hole 140 is rectangular and appears much longer radially than wide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the rotor of Thiele with the caulking sections of Mitsui which span multiple plate layers and have a radial and tangential direction in order to further secure the rotor sheets together thereby increasing the rotor rigidity which helps to prevent vibrational damages to the rotor core.
With respect to claim 6, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Thiele further teaches each of the slots of each of the multiple core sheets has two lateral gaps being adjacent to the shaft hole of the core sheet and extending toward opposite directions (see figure 6, plurality of radially inner gaps between magnet 316 and shaft hub flank each magnet).
With respect to claim 7, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Thiele further teaches each of the slots of each of the multiple core sheets has two lateral gaps being adjacent to the shaft hole of the core sheet and extending toward opposite directions (see figure 6, plurality of radially inner gaps between magnet 316 and shaft hub flank each magnet).
With respect to claim 19, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Thiele further teaches each permanent magnet is made of a samarium cobalt alloy (paragraph 20 “However, magnet 116 may be fabricated from any suitable material that enables motor 10 to function as described herein, for example, bonded neodymium, AlNiCo, sintered neodymium, and/or samarium cobalt.”).
With respect to claim 20, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Thiele further teaches each permanent magnet is made of a samarium cobalt alloy (paragraph 20 “However, magnet 116 may be fabricated from any suitable material that enables motor 10 to function as described herein, for example, bonded neodymium, AlNiCo, sintered neodymium, and/or samarium cobalt.”).
Claim 9-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele in view of Mitsui in further view of Wakade (US 20130022833 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “wherein each of the multiple core sheets is made of a silicon steel sheet.”
Wakade teaches each of the multiple core sheets is made of a silicon steel sheet (paragraph 12 “the lamination stack 18 may be formed from cold-rolled strips of silicon steel sheet 10 stacked together to form an annular core of the rotor 116.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the rotor of Thiele with the multiple sheet projection of Mitsui with the silicon steel plates of Wakade in order to have a higher magnetic flux density thereby increasing the efficiency of the motor as the selected material increases the magnetic attraction of the rotor.
With respect to claim 10, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “wherein each of the multiple core sheets is made of a silicon steel sheet.”
Wakade teaches each of the multiple core sheets is made of a silicon steel sheet (paragraph 12 “the lamination stack 18 may be formed from cold-rolled strips of silicon steel sheet 10 stacked together to form an annular core of the rotor 116.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the rotor of Thiele with the multiple sheet projection of Mitsui with the silicon steel plates of Wakade in order to have a higher magnetic flux density thereby increasing the efficiency of the motor as the selected material increases the magnetic attraction of the rotor.
With respect to claim 12, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each of the multiple core sheets is made of a cobalt-vanadium alloy.”
Wakade teaches each of the multiple core sheets is made of a cobalt-vanadium alloy (paragraphs 22 “Similarly, the silicon steel alloy composition also includes vanadium present in an amount of less than or equal to about 0.005 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon steel alloy composition” and paragraph 24 “The silicon steel alloy composition further includes cobalt present in an amount of from about 0.001 parts by weight to about 5.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon steel alloy composition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the rotor of Thiele with the multiple sheet projection of Mitsui with the cobalt-vanadium plates of Wakade in order to have a higher magnetic flux density thereby increasing the efficiency of the motor as the selected material increases the magnetic attraction of the rotor.
With respect to claim 13, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each of the multiple core sheets is made of a cobalt-vanadium alloy.”
Wakade teaches each of the multiple core sheets is made of a cobalt-vanadium alloy (paragraphs 22 “Similarly, the silicon steel alloy composition also includes vanadium present in an amount of less than or equal to about 0.005 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon steel alloy composition” and paragraph 24 “The silicon steel alloy composition further includes cobalt present in an amount of from about 0.001 parts by weight to about 5.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon steel alloy composition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the rotor of Thiele with the multiple sheet projection of Mitsui with the cobalt-vanadium plates of Wakade in order to have a higher magnetic flux density thereby increasing the efficiency of the motor as the selected material increases the magnetic attraction of the rotor.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele in view of Mitsui in further view of Tanaka (US 20220166276 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each permanent magnet is made of ferrite.”
Tanaka teaches each permanent magnet is made of ferrite (paragraph 22 “The type of the plurality of magnets 40 is not particularly limited. For example, the magnet 40 may be a neodymium magnet or a ferrite magnet. The plurality of magnets 40 include a pair of magnets 41a, 41b.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the rotor of Thiele with the multiple sheet projection of Mitsui with the ferrite magnets of the Tanaka in order to increase the magnetic flux density of the rotor thereby increasing the motor’s efficiency.
With respect to claim 16, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each permanent magnet is made of ferrite.”
Tanaka teaches each permanent magnet is made of ferrite (paragraph 22 “The type of the plurality of magnets 40 is not particularly limited. For example, the magnet 40 may be a neodymium magnet or a ferrite magnet. The plurality of magnets 40 include a pair of magnets 41a, 41b.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the rotor of Thiele with the multiple sheet projection of Mitsui with the ferrite magnets of the Tanaka in order to increase the magnetic flux density of the rotor thereby increasing the motor’s efficiency.
With respect to claim 17, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each permanent magnet is a NdFeB magnet.”
Tanaka teaches each permanent magnet is a NdFeB magnet (paragraph 22 “The type of the plurality of magnets 40 is not particularly limited. For example, the magnet 40 may be a neodymium magnet or a ferrite magnet. The plurality of magnets 40 include a pair of magnets 41a, 41b.” Examiner notes common types of Neodymium magnets include NdFeB magnets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the rotor of Thiele with the multiple sheet projection of Mitsui with the Neodymium magnets of the Tanaka in order to increase the magnetic flux density of the rotor thereby increasing the motor’s efficiency.
With respect to claim 18, Thiele in view of Mitsui teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each permanent magnet is a NdFeB magnet.”
Tanaka teaches each permanent magnet is a NdFeB magnet (paragraph 22 “The type of the plurality of magnets 40 is not particularly limited. For example, the magnet 40 may be a neodymium magnet or a ferrite magnet. The plurality of magnets 40 include a pair of magnets 41a, 41b.” Examiner notes common types of Neodymium magnets include NdFeB magnets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the rotor of Thiele with the multiple sheet projection of Mitsui with the Neodymium magnets of the Tanaka in order to increase the magnetic flux density of the rotor thereby increasing the motor’s efficiency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm EST.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834