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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nigo et al. (US 2017/0110944 A1).
RE claim 1, Nigo teaches a rotor core 11 (Fig.2) comprising a rotor stack (laminated steel plate, see ¶ 33) including a plurality of pole parts (formed by magnet 19, see ¶ 34), each pole part having a magnet embedded hole 21 having a magnet 19 therein and at least one through hole 31a located between the magnet embedded hole 21 and an outer surface 5a of the each pole part, wherein the through hole 31a located between the magnet embedded hole 21 and the outer surface 5a of the each pole part is positioned to be inscribed in a circle inscribing the magnet 19 (see Fig.3).
According to the original specification ¶ 30, the term inscribe: “may mean drawing one shape inside another, just touching but not crossing sides”. Therefore, see Nigo’s Fig.3 for both of the holes 31a and the magnet 19 are inscribed by the circle of bridge structures 39, 11a
RE claim 2/1, Nigo teaches a motor (see title and abstract) comprising the rotor core 11 of claim 1.
RE claim 3/1, Nigo teaches the through hole 31a and the magnet embedded hole 21 are spaced apart from each other (Fig.3).
RE claim 4/1, Nigo teaches the at least one through hole 31a located between the magnet embedded hole 21 and the outer surface 5a of the each pole part comprises a pair of through holes 31a (Fig.3).
RE claim 5/4, Nigo teaches the pair of through holes 31a are symmetrical to each other with respect to a straight line (MC) connecting a center of the rotor stack and a center of the magnet embedded hole 21 (Fig.3).
RE claim 6/1, Nigo teaches the circle (formed by bridge 39, 11a) inscribing the through hole and the magnet is coaxial with the rotor stack (Figs.1-3)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo in view of Nigo et al. (US 2016/0172912 A1, hereinafter referred to as Nigo’912).
RE claim 7/1, Ogawa has been discussed above. Ogawa does not teach a convex protrusion is formed on an outer surface of the each pole part.
Nigo teaches a convex protrusion 29 is formed on an outer surface of the each pole part (Fig.2 and ¶ 41). Thus, the effect of the magnetic resistance by the air holes can be alleviated, thereby being capable of attaining structure that less influences the performance in the magnetic path (¶ 71).
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 Ogawa by having a convex protrusion is formed on an outer surface of the each pole part, as taught by Nigo, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo in view of Andriamalala et al. (US 2021/0194301 A1).
RE claim 8/1, Nigo has been discussed above. Ogawa does not teach the circle inscribing the through hole and the magnet and is eccentric with respect to the rotor stack.
Andriamalala teaches the circle inscribing the through hole and the magnet and is eccentric with respect to the rotor stack (see annotated Fig.2 below), doing so minimize the noise by means of a process of optimization of the radius of curvature and the polar half-angle, but whilst maintaining the magnetic performance levels (¶ 56).
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 Nigo by having the circle inscribing the through hole and the magnet and is eccentric with respect to the rotor stack, as taught by Andriamalala, for the same reasons as discussed above.
[AltContent: textbox (Through holes (H))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
560
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Magnet hole (MH))]
RE claim 9/8, Nigo has been discussed above. Nigo does not teach the circle inscribing both the through hole and the magnet is eccentric, toward the magnet embedded hole, with respect to the rotor stack.
Andriamalala teaches the circle (center at Cc) inscribing both the through hole and the magnet 37 is eccentric, toward the magnet embedded hole, with respect to the rotor stack 31 (see Figs.1, 2 for center Cc is eccentric with center X of rotor body), doing so minimize the noise by means of a process of optimization of the radius of curvature and the polar half-angle, but whilst maintaining the magnetic performance levels (¶ 56).
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 Nigo by having the circle inscribing both the through hole and the magnet is eccentric, toward the magnet embedded hole, with respect to the rotor stack, as taught by Andriamalala, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 10/1, Nigo has been discussed above. Ogawa does not teach the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is positioned to be inscribed in a circle inscribing the magnet and being eccentric, toward the magnet embedded hole, with respect to the rotor stack, a convex protrusion is formed on an outer surface of the each pole part, and an interval between an outer surface of the convex protrusion and the circle inscribing both the through hole and the magnet is constant.
Andriamalala teaches the through hole (H) located between the magnet embedded hole (MH) (where magnet 37 inserted) and the outer surface 42 of the each pole part is positioned to be inscribed in a circle (center at Cc and between D1-D2) inscribing the magnet and being eccentric, toward the magnet embedded hole (MH), with respect to the rotor stack 31, a convex protrusion 50 is formed on an outer surface of the each pole part 50, and an interval (D1-D2) between an outer surface of the convex protrusion 50 and the circle inscribing both the through hole and the magnet 37 is constant (Fig.2), doing so minimize the noise by means of a process of optimization of the radius of curvature and the polar half-angle, but whilst maintaining the magnetic performance levels (¶ 56).
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 Nigo by having the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is positioned to be inscribed in a circle inscribing the magnet and being eccentric, toward the magnet embedded hole, with respect to the rotor stack, a convex protrusion is formed on an outer surface of the each pole part, and an interval between an outer surface of the convex protrusion and the circle inscribing both the through hole and the magnet is constant, as taught by Andriamalala, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo in view of Yabe et al. (JP 2007181254 A, the machine translation of which has been provided).
RE claim 11/1, Nigo has been discussed above. Nigo does not teach the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is connected to the magnet embedded hole.
Yabe teaches the through hole (where fastening member 4 located, see Fig.24, 28) is connected to the magnet embedded hole (1a), doing so allows leakage of magnetic flux can be minimized (see translation page 8, 6th ¶).
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 Nigo by having the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is connected to the magnet embedded hole, as taught by Yabe, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo in view of Yu et al. (US 2015/0372550 A1).
RE claim 12/1, Nigo has been discussed above. Nigo does not teach a fixing member inserted in the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part, the fixing member having two opposite ends axially supported by the magnet.
Yu teaches a fixing member 4 inserted in the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part (Fig.5), the fixing member having two opposite ends 3 axially supported by the magnet 2 (Fig.3), doing so allows the fixing of the rotor assembly to have simple structure. The fixing mode is reliable, and can effectively prevent the detachment of the weighting materials from the grooves. The motor has simple structure, reliable fixing and high security (¶ 6).
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 Nigo by having a fixing member inserted in the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part, the fixing member having two opposite ends axially supported by the magnet, as taught by Yu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 14, Nigo teaches a rotor core 11 (Fig.2), comprising: a rotor stack including a plurality of pole parts (formed by magnet 19, see ¶ 34), each pole part having a magnet embedded hole 21 having a magnet 19 therein and at least one through hole 31a located between the magnet embedded hole 21 and an outer surface 5a of the each pole part; and
wherein the through hole 31a located between the magnet embedded hole 21 and the outer surface 5a of the each pole part is positioned to be inscribed in a circle inscribing the magnet 19 (see Fig.3).
According to the original specification ¶ 30, the term inscribe: “may mean drawing one shape inside another, just touching but not crossing sides”. Therefore, see Nigo’s Fig.3 for both of the holes 31a and the magnet 19 are inscribed by the circle of bridge structures 39, 11a.
Nigo does not teach a fixing member inserted in the through hole and axially supported by the magnet.
Yu teaches a fixing member 4 inserted in the through hole and axially supported by the magnet 2 (Fig.3), doing so allows the fixing of the rotor assembly to have simple structure. The fixing mode is reliable, and can effectively prevent the detachment of the weighting materials from the grooves. The motor has simple structure, reliable fixing and high security (¶ 6).
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 Nigo by having a fixing member inserted in the through hole and axially supported by the magnet, as taught by Yu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 15/14, Nigo in view of Yu has been discussed above. Nigo further teaches a motor (see title and abstract) comprising the rotor core 11 of claim 14.
RE claim 19/14, as discussed above, Yu teaches the fixing member 4 includes: a load member (3, 4) including a body portion 4 inserted in the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part, and a support 3 having a larger diameter than the body portion 4 (Fig.3) at one end of the body portion and supported by the magnet 2 (Fig.3).
RE claim 20/19, as discussed above, Yu teaches the fixing member 4 further includes a coupler 3 coupled to another end of the body portion 4 and supported by the magnet 2 (see Figs.2, 3 for fixing member 4 connected to both axial end of magnet via element 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo in view of Yu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yabe et al. (JP 2007181254 A).
RE claim 13/12, Nigo in view of Yu has been discussed above. Yu does not teach the fixing member inserted in the through hole has a non-magnetic body.
Yabe teaches the fixing member inserted in the through hole has a non-magnetic body (see translation page 6, 3rd and 6th ¶ for non-magnetic rivet), doing so allows the leakage of flux to be reduced (translation page 6, 6th ¶).
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 Nigo in view of Yu by having the fixing member inserted in the through hole has a non-magnetic body, as taught by Yabe, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo in view of Yu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (JP 2010213553 A).
RE claim 16/14, Nigo in view of Yu has been discussed above. Yu does not teach the at least one through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part has a pair of through holes, and the fixing member is inserted in each of the pair of through holes.
Ogawa teaches the at least one through hole 35 (Fig.7) located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part has a pair of through holes 35, and the fixing member 36 is inserted in each of the pair of through holes 35 (Fig.7). Thereby, since the force acting on each rivet is reduced, the deformation amount of the rivet can be further reduced (see translation page 4, 2nd ¶).
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 Nigo in view of Yu by having the at least one through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part has a pair of through holes, and the fixing member is inserted in each of the pair of through holes, as taught by Ogawa, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo in view of Yu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yabe et al. (JP 2007181254 A).
RE claim 17/14, Nigo in view of Yu has been discussed above. Nigo in view of Yu does not teach the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is connected to the magnet embedded hole, and the fixing member is supported by the magnet through a portion where the through hole and the magnet embedded hole are connected to each other.
Yabe teaches the through hole (where element 5 inserted, see Fig.28) located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is connected to the magnet embedded hole 1d, and the fixing member 4 is supported by the magnet 6 through a portion where the through hole and the magnet embedded hole are connected to each other (Fig.28), doing so allows leakage of magnetic flux can be minimized (see translation page 8, 6th ¶).
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 Nigo in view of Yu by having the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is connected to the magnet embedded hole, and the fixing member is supported by the magnet through a portion where the through hole and the magnet embedded hole are connected to each other, as taught by Yabe, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 18/14, Nigo in view of Yu has been discussed above. Yu does not teach the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is connected to the magnet embedded hole, and the fixing member is press-fitted in the through hole and supported by the magnet through a portion where the through hole and the magnet embedded hole are connected to each other.
Yabe teaches through hole (where element 4 inserted) located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is connected to the magnet embedded hole 1d, and the fixing member 4 is press-fitted in the through hole and supported by the magnet 6 through a portion where the through hole and the magnet embedded hole are connected to each other (Fig.28), doing so allows leakage of magnetic flux can be minimized (see translation page 8, 6th ¶).
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 Nigo in view of Yu by having the through hole located between the magnet embedded hole and the outer surface of the each pole part is connected to the magnet embedded hole, and the fixing member is press-fitted in the through hole and supported by the magnet through a portion where the through hole and the magnet embedded hole are connected to each other, as suggested by Yabe, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims 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.
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 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 THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights