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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 28, 30-31, 33, and 37-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/12/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-27, 29, 32, and 34-36 in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claimed subject matter of the groups are sufficiently related such that an undue burden would not be present. This is not found persuasive because the two groups are classified in different areas.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description:
201 as seen in paragraph [0393].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 lines 15-16 the phrase “positioned radially outer side” should instead be “positioned on a radially outer side.”
In claim 3 line 3 the phrase “a radially outer side” should instead be “on a radially outer 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0167546 to Sutani et al. (hereinafter Sutani; cited by Applicant on 6/12/2023) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0012458 to Atallah et al. (hereinafter Atallah).
Regarding claim 1, Sutani teaches a power transmission device (Paragraph [0090]) comprising:
a drive-side magnet (FIG. 11, 52) that includes a plurality of poles and rotates (Paragraph [0090]);
a magnet (FIG. 11, 62) that has a number of poles larger than a number of poles of the drive-side magnet (Paragraph [0092]-[0093]);
a pole piece (FIG. 11, 46) that includes a plurality of magnetic body portions (Paragraph [0094]); and
a sealing member (FIG. 11, 44) that partitions a space into a driving side (FIG. 11, 5) where the drive-side magnet is disposed and a driven side space (FIG. 11, 6) where the magnet and the pole piece are disposed, the sealing member sealing fluid between the driving side space and the driven side space (Paragraph [0090]), wherein
the pole piece and the magnet have a cylindrical shape (Paragraph [0090]-[0093]) and are disposed coaxially with and radially outside of the drive-side magnet (Paragraph [0090]-[0093]), and
the sealing member including a sealing cylinder portion (FIG. 11, 44; Paragraph [0090]) positioned radially outside of the drive-side magnet, and a sealing bottom surface portion (FIG. 11, 45) covering the sealing cylinder portion from the driving side space.
Sutani does not teach a housing that houses the drive-side magnet; a stationary magnet that is fixed to the housing; and a pole piece that rotates by modulating a magnetic flux between the drive-side magnet and the stationary magnet.
However, Atallah teaches a housing (FIG. 4, 415) that houses the drive-side magnet (FIG. 4, 410); a stationary magnet (FIG. 4, 414) that is fixed to the housing (Paragraph [0032]); and a pole piece (FIG. 4, 406) that rotates by modulating a magnetic flux between the drive-side magnet and the stationary magnet (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani with the teachings of Atallah by having a stationary magnet and a moving pole piece as it may provide advantageous rotational properties such as reduced fluid turbulence (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein a number Npp of the magnetic body portions has a relationship of: Npp = (Pin + Pf)/2 with the number of poles Pin of the drive-side magnet and the number of poles Pf of the stationary magnet (Paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1.
Sutani does not teach a bearing member that rotatably supports the pole piece with respect to the housing, wherein the pole piece is positioned away from the bearing member with respect to an imaginary line connecting an end portion of the drive-side magnet away from the bearing member and an end portion of the stationary magnet away from the bearing member, in an axial direction of the drive-side magnet.
However, Atallah teaches a bearing member (FIG. 4, 419) that rotatably supports the pole piece with respect to the housing, wherein the pole piece is positioned away from the bearing member with respect to an imaginary line connecting an end portion of the drive-side magnet away from the bearing member and an end portion of the stationary magnet away from the bearing member, in an axial direction of the drive-side magnet (FIG> 4; 406, 410, 414).
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani with the teachings of Atallah to implement a bearing supporting the pole piece to help further radially position the pole piece.
Regarding claim 7, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1.
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach the pole piece being shorter than the drive-side magnet and the stationary magnet in an axial direction of the drive-side magnet.
However, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah by modifying the length of the pole piece as a matter of design choice in order to have a more desirable rotational performance of the pole piece (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 8, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1.
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach the stationary magnet being longer than the driven-side magnet in an axial direction of the drive-side magnet.
However, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah by modifying the length of the stationary magnet as a matter of design choice in order to have a more desirable magnetic flux interaction between the magnets (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 9, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1.
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach the drive-side magnet being longer than the pole piece and shorter than the stationary magnet in an axial direction of the drive-side magnet.
However, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah by modifying the length of the drive-side magnet as a matter of design choice in order to have a more desirable magnetic flux interaction between the magnets (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 10, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Atallah further teaches the housing including: a cylindrical housing cylinder portion (FIG. 4, 415) that surrounds the drive-side magnet, the stationary magnet, and the pole piece from a radially outer side; and an axis alignment portion (FIG. 4, bolts connecting axial end sections of housing 415) fixed on the housing cylinder portion for axially aligning the drive-side magnet with the pole piece.
Regarding claim 11, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Sutani further teaches the sealing cylinder portion being made of a single non-magnetic body member (FIG. 11; 43, 44, 45).
Regarding claim 12, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Sutani further teaches the sealing member including a sealing top surface portion (FIG. 11, 43) that extends outward in a radial direction from an end portion of the sealing cylinder portion away from the sealing bottom surface portion, and the sealing top surface portion, the sealing cylinder portion, and the sealing bottom surface portion are made of a single non-magnetic body member (FIG. 11; 43, 44, 45).
Regarding claim 13, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Atallah further teaches an output shaft (FIG. 4, 458) that rotates integrally and coaxially with the pole piece (Paragraph [0032]), wherein the sealing bottom surface portion includes a driven side shaft receiving portion (FIG. 4, 417) that rotatably supports the output shaft.
Regarding claim 14, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Atallah further teaches an input shaft (FIG. 4, 462) that rotates integrally and coaxially with the drive-side magnet (Paragraph [0032]), wherein the sealing bottom surface portion includes a driving side shaft receiving portion (FIG. 4; 421, 423) that rotatably supports the input shaft.
Regarding claim 18, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Sutani further teaches the pole piece driving an impeller (FIG. 11, 8) of a pump that causes a fluid to flow, and the driven side space is a space where the fluid is present (Paragraph [0093]; [0095]).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutani in view of Atallah and in further view of Japanese Patent No. 2020-133790 to Nakamura et al. (hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 3, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Atallah further teaches the housing including a cylindrical housing cylinder portion (FIG. 4, 415) that surrounds the drive-side magnet, the stationary magnet, and the pole piece from a radially outer side.
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach the power transmission device further including a back yoke made of a magnetic body in a cylindrical shape and fixed on an inner peripheral surface of the housing cylinder portion, and the stationary magnet being fixed on an inner peripheral surface of the back yoke.
However, Nakamura teaches a back yoke (FIG. 3, 26a) made of a magnetic body in a cylindrical shape and fixed on an inner peripheral surface of the housing cylinder portion (FIG. 2-1, 24; Paragraph [0038]), and the stationary magnet being fixed on an inner peripheral surface of the back yoke (Paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah with the teachings of Nakamura to place the stationary magnet on a back yoke to better direct the flux of the stationary magnet.
Regarding claim 4, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Atallah further teaches the housing including a cylindrical housing cylinder portion that surrounds the drive-side magnet, the stationary magnet, and the pole piece (FIG. 4, 415).
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach the stationary magnet being fixed on an inner peripheral surface of the housing cylinder portion.
However, Nakamura teaches a stationary magnet fixed on an inner peripheral surface of the housing cylinder portion (Paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah with the teachings of Nakamura to fix the stationary magnet to the housing to better secure the stationary magnet during operation of the device.
Regarding claim 5, Sutani in view of Atallah and Nakamura teaches the power transmission device according to claim 3, wherein Nakamura further teaches the housing cylinder portion being made of a magnetic body (Paragraph [0038]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutani in view of Atallah and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0290525 to Hotta et al. (hereinafter Hotta).
Regarding claim 15, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1.
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach the driven side space being a space where a fluorocarbon refrigerant is present.
However, Hotta teaches a driven side space being a space where a fluorocarbon refrigerant is present.
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah with the teachings of Hotta to incorporate the device of Sutani in view of Atallah in the refrigerant transporting device of Hotta for the device of Hotta to benefit from the features of the device of Sutani in view of Atallah.
Regarding claim 16, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device of claim 1.
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach the pole piece driving a valve element of an expansion valve that causes a refrigerant of a vapor compression refrigeration cycle to decompress and expand, and the driven side space being a space where the refrigerant is present.
However, Hotta teaches driving a valve element of an expansion valve (FIG. 2, 66) that causes a refrigerant of a vapor compression refrigeration cycle to decompress and expand, a driven side space being a space where a fluorocarbon refrigerant is present (Paragraph [0039].
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah with the teachings of Hotta to incorporate the device of Sutani in view of Atallah in the valve of Hotta for the valve of Hotta to benefit from the features of the device of Sutani in view of Atallah.
Regarding claim 17, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device of claim 1.
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach the pole piece driving a valve element of an flow rate regulation valve that regulates a flow rate of a fluid, and the driven side space being a space where the fluid is present.
However, Hotta teaches driving a valve element (FIG. 2, 66) of a flow rate regulating valve that regulates a flow rate of a fluid, and a driven side space being a space where a fluorocarbon refrigerant is present (Paragraph [0039].
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah with the teachings of Hotta to incorporate the device of Sutani in view of Atallah in the valve of Hotta for the valve of Hotta to benefit from the features of the device of Sutani in view of Atallah.
Claims 19, 22-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutani in view of Atallah and in further view of Sutani in view of Atallah and in further view of Japanese Patent No. 2019-004591 to Kusakari.
Regarding claim 19, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Sutani further teaches a motor unit (FIG. 11, 7) that outputs driving power to rotate the drive-side magnet by electromagnetic force (Paragraph [0095]).
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach a lock determination unit that determines whether lock occurs in the pole piece using a variation in a rotational load regarding an operation of the drive-side magnet.
However, Kusakari teaches a lock determination unit (FIG. 3, 203) that determines whether lock occurs in the pole piece using a variation in a rotational load regarding an operation of the drive-side magnet (Paragraph [0036]-[0044]).
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah with the lock determination unit of Kusakari to ensure proper operation of the device and monitor when it does not operate properly.
Regarding claim 22, Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari teaches the power transmission device according to claim 19, wherein Kusakari further teaches the lock determination unit performing frequency analysis on an input current to the motor unit, and when the input current in a predetermined specific frequency exceeds a reference value, lock is determined to occur in the pole piece (Paragraph [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 23, Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari teaches the power transmission device according to claim 19, wherein Kusakari further teaches the motor unit being a three-phase motor (Paragraph [0029]), and the lock determination unit performs frequency analysis on a drive current of the three-phase motor, and when the drive current in a predetermined specific frequency exceeds a reference value, lock is determined to occur in the pole piece (Paragraph [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 25, Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari teaches the power transmission device according to claim 19, wherein Kusakari further teaches the motor being a three-phase motor (Paragraph [0029]), the power transmission device includes a three-phase inverter circuit unit (Paragraph [0029]) for identifying a duty ratio from a relationship between a predetermined triangular-wave and a determination voltage determined in conjunction with the variation in rotational load, the duty ratio being a ratio between on time and off time in the three-phase motor, and the lock determination unit performs frequency analysis on the determination voltage that changes in conjunction with the variation in the rotational load, and when the determination voltage in a predetermined specific frequency exceeds a reference value, lock is determined to occur in the pole piece (Paragraph [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 26, Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari teaches the power transmission device according to claim 19, wherein Kusakari further teaches the motor unit being a three-phase motor (Paragraph [0029]), and the lock determination unit performing frequency analysis on a current in any one phase in the three-phase motor, and when the current in the one phase in a predetermined specific frequency exceeds a reference value, lock is determined to occur in the pole piece (Paragraph [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 27, Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari teaches the power transmission device according to claim 19, wherein Kusakari further teaches the motor unit being a three-phase motor (Paragraph [0029]), and the lock determination unit performing frequency analysis on a line voltage regarding any two phase of the three-phase motor, and when the line voltage in a predetermined specific frequency exceeds a reference value, lock is determined to occur in the pole piece (Paragraph [0036]-[0044]).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari and in further view of Japanese Patent No. S60-219945 to Miyamoto et al. (hereinafter Miyamoto).
Regarding claim 20, Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari teaches the power transmission device according to claim 19.
Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari does not teach a number of poles of the motor unit differing from the number of poles of the drive-side magnet.
However, Miyamoto teaches a number of poles of the motor unit (FIG. 2, 33) being different from the number of poles of the drive-side magnet (FIG. 2, 31).
Therefore, 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 power transmission device according to Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari with the teaches of Miyamoto to differentiate the pole numbers of the motor unit and drive-side magnet to result in a desired rotational profile of the device.
Regarding claim 21, Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari teaches the power transmission device according to claim 19.
Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari does not teach ½ of the number of poles of the motor unit differing from a least common multiple of ½ of the number of poles in the drive-side magnet and ½ of the number of poles in the stationary magnet, and a least common multiple of the number of poles of the motor unit and a number of slots in the motor unit differing from a least common multiple of ½ of the number of poles in the drive-side magnet and ½ of the number of poles in the stationary magnet.
However, Miyamoto teaches a motor unit having a number of poles (FIG. 2, 33) and a drive-side magnet having a number of poles (Fig. 2, 31) such ½ of the number of poles of the motor unit differing from a least common multiple of ½ of the number of poles in the drive-side magnet and ½ of the number of poles in the stationary magnet, and a least common multiple of the number of poles of the motor unit and a number of slots in the motor unit differing from a least common multiple of ½ of the number of poles in the drive-side magnet and ½ of the number of poles in the stationary magnet could be achieved.
Therefore, 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 power transmission device according to Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari with the teaches of Miyamoto to differentiate the pole numbers of the motor unit and drive-side magnet to result in a desired rotational profile of the device.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari and in further view of Chinese Patent No. 104242246 to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 24, Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari teaches the power transmission device according to claim 19.
Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari does not teach the motor unit being a DC motor including a commutator and a brush, and the lock determination unit performing frequency analysis on a drive current of the DC motor, and when the drive current in a predetermined specific frequency exceeds a reference value, lock is determined to occur in the pole piece.
However, Liu teaches a DC motor (FIG. 2, 23) including a commutator and a brush (Paragraph [0005]), and a lock determination unit (Paragraph [0046]-[0066]).
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah and Kusakari with the teachings of Liu to provide a lock determined DC motor as a DC motor has certain application specific benefits such as simplicity in construction.
Claims 29, 32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutani in view of Atallah and in further view of Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 29, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein Sutani further teaches a motor unit (FIG. 11, 7) driving a drive-side magnet (FIG. 11, 52).
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach a stator and a rotor, the stator including a slot around which a coil is wound, the rotor including a magnet to rotate, the motor unit driving the drive-side magnet by the rotor, wherein a plurality of slots is disposed in each phase, and the drive-side magnet is configured such that induced voltages occurred in the coil by the drive-side magnet cancel one another in each phase.
However, Miyamoto teaches a stator (FIG. 2, 30) and a rotor (FIG. 2, 25), the stator including a slot around which a coil is wound (FIG. 2, 33), the rotor including a magnet (FIG. 2, 31) to rotate, the motor unit driving the drive-side magnet by the rotor, wherein a plurality of slots is disposed in each phase, and the drive-side magnet is configured such that induced voltages occurred in the coil by the drive-side magnet cancel one another in each phase (FIG. 2, 31; poles are disposed circumferentially equally).
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah with the teachings of Miyamoto to provide a drive-side magnet that cancel induced voltages in the motor coils to ensure proper operation of the device.
Regarding claim 32, Sutani in view of Atallah and Miyamoto teaches the power transmission device according to claim 29, wherein Miyamoto further teaches the rotor (FIG. 2, 25), the stator (FIG. 2, 30) and the drive-side magnet (FIG. 2, 28) being disposed to be arranged in a radial direction of the rotor.
Regarding claim 34, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, comprising a motor unit (FIG. 11, 7), the motor unit driving the drive-side magnet, wherein the drive-side magnet has a cylindrical shape (Paragraph [0092]).
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach a stator and a rotor, the stator including a coil, the rotor including a magnet to rotate, the motor unit driving the drive-side magnet by the rotor, wherein the stator and the rotor are disposed inside the drive-side magnet.
However, Miyamoto teaches a stator (FIG. 2, 30) and a rotor (FIG. 2, 25), the stator including a coil (FIG. 2, 33), the rotor including a magnet (FIG. 2, 31) to rotate, the motor unit driving the drive-side magnet by the rotor, wherein the stator and the rotor are disposed inside the drive-side magnet (FIG. 2, 28).
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah with the teachings of Miyamoto by placing the motor inside the drive-side magnet in order to reduce the axial footprint of the device.
Regarding claim 35, Sutani in view of Atallah and Miyamoto teaches the power transmission device according to claim 34, wherein Miyamoto further teaches an interposition member (FIG. 2, 25) magnet of a magnetic body and disposed between the rotor and the drive-side magnet (FIG. 2, 31).
Regarding claim 36, Sutani in view of Atallah teaches the power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the drive-side magnet has a cylindrical shape (Paragraph [0092]).
Sutani in view of Atallah does not teach a stator that includes a coil, wherein the stator is disposed inside the drive-side magnet and rotates the drive-side magnet as a rotor.
However, Miyamoto teaches a stator (FIG. 2, 30) that includes a coil (FIG. 2, 33), wherein the stator is disposed inside the drive-side magnet (FIG. 2, 28) and rotates the drive-side magnet as a rotor.
Therefore, 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 power transmission device of Sutani in view of Atallah with the teachings of Miyamoto by placing the stator inside the drive-side magnet in order to reduce the axial footprint of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights