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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 01/02/26. Regarding the amendment, claims 1-19 are present for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remark, filed 01/02/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under Neumann have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wu.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (CN 214100998 U).
Regarding claim 1,Wu teaches a stator lamination of an induction motor, wherein the stator lamination (10) is annular (fig 1), a plurality of stator teeth (11) and a plurality of stator slots (12) are configured at an inner circumference of the stator lamination (10), the plurality of stator teeth (11) and the plurality of stator slots (12) are arranged alternately, the stator lamination (10) has a stator inner diameter D1 (d), the number of the plurality of stator slots is (Q1 = 48), each stator slot (12) has a stator slot depth H1 (H2), and the stator slot depth H1 meets a formula: H1=
π
*
D
1
*
k
Q
1
,
wherein Q1 is greater than or equal to 24 (Q1 = 48), a value of D1 ranges from 95 mm to 105 mm (d is in ranges 100-110mm), and a value of k ranges from 1.95 to 2.05 (H1 is in range 8-13mm, abstract, so H1 is meets the formular H1 =
π
*
D
1
*
k
Q
1
).
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches the stator inner diameter D1 is substantially equal to 100.1mm (d is in ranges 100-110mm, so d=100.1mm).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches each stator tooth has a stator tooth width T1 (L1), and a ratio of the stator slot depth H1 (H2) to the stator tooth width T1, which is H1/T1, ranges from 3.8 to 4.0 (H2/L1, H2 is in ranges 8-13mm, L1 is in ranges 3-3.8mm).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Major et al. (US 2018/0212501 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1, except for the added limitation of the stator lamination is made of silicon steel.
Major teaches a single phase induction motor having stator lamination is made of silicon steel (para [0023]) to maximize flux density (para [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu’s stator lamination made of silicon steel as taught by Major. Doing so would maximize flux density (para [0023]). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Neumann (US 4,831,301).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1, except for the added limitation of an induction motor, comprising: an output shaft; a rotor, drivably connected to the output shaft, comprising a rotor core, and the rotor core comprising a plurality of rotor laminations stacked along an axial direction; and a stator, arranged at an outer circumference side of the rotor, comprising a stator core and a stator winding wound on the stator core, the stator core comprising a plurality of stator laminations stacked along an axial direction.
Regarding claim 5, Neumann teaches an induction motor, comprising an output shaft (22); a rotor (18), drivably connected to the output shaft (22), comprising a rotor core (40), and the rotor core (40) comprising a plurality of rotor laminations stacked along an axial direction (fig 1); and a stator (14), arranged at an outer circumference side of the rotor (18), comprising a stator core (34) and a stator winding (36) wound on the stator core (34), the stator core (34) comprising a plurality of stator laminations stacked along an axial direction to optimize flux density (col 2 ln 24-26).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu’s induction motor with an output shaft; a rotor, drivably connected to the output shaft, comprising a rotor core, and the rotor core comprising a plurality of rotor laminations stacked along an axial direction; and a stator, arranged at an outer circumference side of the rotor, comprising a stator core and a stator winding wound on the stator core, the stator core comprising a plurality of stator laminations stacked along an axial direction as taught by Neumann. Doing so would optimize flux density (col 2 ln 24-26).
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Neumann teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 5, Wu further teaches the stator inner diameter D1 is substantially equal to 100.1mm (d is in ranges 100-110mm, so d=100.1mm).
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Neumann teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 5, Wu further teaches each stator tooth has a stator tooth width T1 (L1), and a ratio of the stator slot depth H1 (H2) to the stator tooth width T1, which is H1/T1, ranges from 3.8 to 4.0 (H2/L1, H2 is in ranges 8-13mm, L1 is in ranges 3-3.8mm).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Armstrong et al. (US 5,045,742 A).
Regarding claims 8-10, Wu teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 5-7, except for the added limitation of a plurality of rotor teeth and a plurality of rotor slots are arranged at an outer circumference of each rotor lamination, the plurality of rotor teeth and the plurality of rotor slots are arranged alternately, each of the rotor slots is configured with a rotor slot depth H2, each rotor tooth has a rotor tooth width T2, and a ratio of the rotor slot depth H2 to the rotor tooth width T2, which is H2/T2, ranges from 5.7 to 6.1.
Armstrong teaches an electric motor with optimum core dimensions having a plurality of rotor teeth (118, fig 5A) and a plurality of rotor slots (30) are arranged at an outer circumference of each rotor lamination (26), the plurality of rotor teeth (118) and the plurality of rotor slots (30) are arranged alternately, each of the rotor slots (30) is configured with a rotor slot depth (L1), each rotor tooth has a rotor tooth width (W3), and a ratio of the rotor slot depth (L1) to the rotor tooth width (W3), which is L1/W3, ranges from 5.7 to 6.1 (table 1) to reduce motor magnetic flux losses (col 4 ln 17-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu’s stator lamination with a plurality of rotor teeth and a plurality of rotor slots are arranged at an outer circumference of each rotor lamination, the plurality of rotor teeth and the plurality of rotor slots are arranged alternately, each of the rotor slots is configured with a rotor slot depth H2, each rotor tooth has a rotor tooth width T2, and a ratio of the rotor slot depth H2 to the rotor tooth width T2, which is H2/T2, ranges from 5.7 to 6.1 as taught by Armstrong. Doing so would reduce motor magnetic flux losses (col 4 ln 17-18).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Neumann, further in view of Major et al. (US 2018/0212501 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Neumann teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 6, except for the added limitation of the stator lamination is made of silicon steel.
Major teaches a single phase induction motor having stator lamination is made of silicon steel (para [0023]) to maximize flux density (para [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Neumann’s stator lamination made of silicon steel as taught by Major. Doing so would maximize flux density (para [0023]). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Neumann, in view of Yasunori et al. (US 6,708,520 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Wu in view of Neumann teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 5, except for the added limitation of a compressor, comprising: a shell, defining a low-pressure chamber and a high-pressure chamber within the shell, and provided with a suction inlet and a discharge outlet which are respectively communicated with the low-pressure chamber and the high-pressure chamber; a compressing mechanism, arranged in the low-pressure chamber, comprising an orbiting scroll and a fixed scroll that cooperate with each other; and the induction motor arranged in the low-pressure chamber, wherein the output shaft of the induction motor is connected to the orbiting scroll to drive the orbiting scroll to move relative to the fixed scroll, wherein the compression mechanism compresses the fluid in the low-pressure chamber and discharges the compressed fluid into the high-pressure chamber.
Yasunori teaches a compressor, comprising:
a shell (2), defining a low-pressure chamber and a high-pressure chamber (higher and lower portions inside chamber 2) within the shell (2), and provided with a suction inlet (8) and a discharge outlet (9) which are respectively communicated with the low-pressure chamber and the high-pressure chamber;
a compressing mechanism (18), arranged in the low-pressure chamber, comprising an orbiting scroll (6) and a fixed scroll (7) that cooperate with each other; and
the induction motor (11-12) arranged in the low-pressure chamber, wherein the output shaft (4) of the induction motor is connected to the orbiting scroll (6) to drive the orbiting scroll (6) to move relative to the fixed scroll (7), wherein the compression mechanism (18) compresses the fluid in the low-pressure chamber and discharges the compressed fluid into the high-pressure chamber (fig 1) to enhance the efficiency so as to restrain heat-generation of the motor portion (col 2 ln 53-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Neumann’s stator lamination with a compressor, comprising a shell, defining a low-pressure chamber and a high-pressure chamber within the shell, and provided with a suction inlet and a discharge outlet which are respectively communicated with the low-pressure chamber and the high-pressure chamber; a compressing mechanism, arranged in the low-pressure chamber, comprising an orbiting scroll and a fixed scroll that cooperate with each other; and the induction motor arranged in the low-pressure chamber, wherein the output shaft of the induction motor is connected to the orbiting scroll to drive the orbiting scroll to move relative to the fixed scroll, wherein the compression mechanism compresses the fluid in the low-pressure chamber and discharges the compressed fluid into the high-pressure chamber as taught by Yasunori. Doing so would enhance the efficiency so as to restrain heat-generation of the motor portion (col 2 ln 53-55).
Regarding claim 13, Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 12, Neumann further teaches the stator winding (36) forms a first winding assembly and a second winding assembly respectively at two ends of the stator core( 34) in an axial direction of the stator core (fig 1). However, Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori does not teach a distance between a centerline of the suction inlet and a midline of the first winding assembly in the axial direction is less than or equal to 10 mm, or a distance between the centerline of the suction inlet and a midline of the second winding assembly in the axial direction is less than or equal to 10 mm.
An artisan would have ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the structure of the compressor with a distance between a centerline of the suction inlet and a midline of the first winding assembly in the axial direction is less than or equal to 10 mm, or a distance between the centerline of the suction inlet and a midline of the second winding assembly in the axial direction is less than or equal to 10 mm as recited in the instant invention to reduce material cost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori’s stator lamination with a distance between a centerline of the suction inlet and a midline of the first winding assembly in the axial direction is less than or equal to 10 mm, or a distance between the centerline of the suction inlet and a midline of the second winding assembly in the axial direction is less than or equal to 10 mm as recited in the instant invention. Doing so would reduce material cost so that improving manufacturing cost. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 13, Wu further teaches the stator inner diameter D1 is substantially equal to 100.1mm (d is in ranges 100-110mm, so d=100.1mm).
Regarding claim 15, Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 13, Wu further teaches each stator tooth has a stator tooth width T1 (L1), and a ratio of the stator slot depth H1 (H2) to the stator tooth width T1, which is H1/T1, ranges from 3.8 to 4.0 (H2/L1, H2 is in ranges 8-13mm, L1 is in ranges 3-3.8mm).
Regarding claim 19, Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 12, except for the added limitation of a refrigeration device wherein the refrigeration device comprises the compressor.
Yasunori further teaches a refrigeration device, wherein the refrigeration device comprises the compressor (fig 1) to enhance the efficiency so as to restrain heat-generation of the motor portion (col 2 ln 53-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori’s stator lamination with a refrigeration device wherein the refrigeration device comprises the compressor as further taught by Yasunori. Doing so would enhance the efficiency so as to restrain heat-generation of the motor portion (col 2 ln 53-55).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori, further in view of Armstrong.
Regarding claims 16-17, Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 14-15, except for the added limitation of a plurality of rotor teeth and a plurality of rotor slots are arranged at an outer circumference of each rotor lamination, the plurality of rotor teeth and the plurality of rotor slots are arranged alternately, each of the rotor slots is configured with a rotor slot depth H2, each rotor tooth has a rotor tooth width T2, and a ratio of the rotor slot depth H2 to the rotor tooth width T2, which is H2/T2, ranges from 5.7 to 6.1.
Armstrong teaches an electric motor with optimum core dimensions having a plurality of rotor teeth (118, fig 5A) and a plurality of rotor slots (30) are arranged at an outer circumference of each rotor lamination (26), the plurality of rotor teeth (118) and the plurality of rotor slots (30) are arranged alternately, each of the rotor slots (30) is configured with a rotor slot depth (L1), each rotor tooth has a rotor tooth width (W3), and a ratio of the rotor slot depth (L1) to the rotor tooth width (W3), which is L1/W3, ranges from 5.7 to 6.1 (table 1) to reduce motor magnetic flux losses (col 4 ln 17-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori’s stator lamination with a plurality of rotor teeth and a plurality of rotor slots are arranged at an outer circumference of each rotor lamination, the plurality of rotor teeth and the plurality of rotor slots are arranged alternately, each of the rotor slots is configured with a rotor slot depth H2, each rotor tooth has a rotor tooth width T2, and a ratio of the rotor slot depth H2 to the rotor tooth width T2, which is H2/T2, ranges from 5.7 to 6.1 as taught by Armstrong. Doing so would reduce motor magnetic flux losses (col 4 ln 17-18).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori, further in view of Major.
Regarding claim 18, Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 13, except for the added limitation of the stator lamination is made of silicon steel.
Major teaches a single phase induction motor having stator lamination is made of silicon steel (para [0023]) to maximize flux density (para [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Neumann and Yasunori’s stator lamination made of silicon steel as taught by Major. Doing so would maximize flux density (para [0023]). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishihama et al. (US 2011/0210692 A1) teaches a squirrel cage induction motor includes: a stator core (11); a plurality of stator slots (12) radially disposed in a circumferential direction of the stator core (11) with predetermined intervals; a plurality of stator windings (13) housed in the stator slots respectively; a rotor core (21); a plurality of rotor slots (22) radially disposed in a circumferential direction of the rotor core (22) with predetermined intervals; a plurality of rotor conductors (23) housed in the rotor slots (22) respectively. The stator windings (13) and the rotor conductors (23) includes electrically conductive materials mainly composed of copper. An area ratio of a total area of the stator slots (12) to a total area of the rotor slots (22) is not smaller than 2.7 and not greater than 8.0 to provide compatibility between the starting characteristic (starting torque) and the steady characteristic (for a high efficiency) can be provided.
Yabe et al. (US 2010/00253174 A1) teaches an indication motor rotor capable of improving motor performance by concentrating portions under magnetic saturation conditions of rotor teeth. The rotor 1 of an induction motor of this invention may include slots 3 formed approximately in the shape of a T. The slots 3 may be formed so that top slots 3a are arranged on an outer peripheral portion of a rotor core 1a, and bottom slots 3b are arranged on an inner side of the top slots 3a. The width in the circumferential direction of the top slot 3a is wider than the width in the circumferential direction of the bottom slot 3b, and the width in the circumferential direction of a rotor tooth 4 between adjacent top slots 3a is narrower than the width in the circumferential direction of the rotor tooth 4 between adjacent bottom slots 3b.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEDA T PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/LEDA T PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights