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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/5/26 and 4/3/26 have been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US Patent No.: 6836045) in view of Nashiki et al. (US Patent No.: 5903080).
For claim 1, Murakami et al. disclose the claimed invention comprising: a columnar rotor iron core (reference numeral 1, figure 1) at a center of which a rotary shaft (i.e. shaft at center of rotor core 1 in figure 1) is disposed (see figure 1); and a flux barrier slit group (i.e. slits shown in figure 2B) provided for each magnetic pole of the rotor iron core (see figures 1, 2B), wherein the slit group for each magnetic pole consists of: one and only outer layer slit (i.e. radially outermost slit shown in figure 2B, see also annotated figure below), and one and only inner layer slit (i.e. radially inner slit in which a magnet is disposed as shown in figure 2B, see also annotated figure below) having both end portions positioned close to an outer circumference of the rotor iron core on opposite sides of the outer layer slit in a circumferential direction (i.e. ends of the radially innermost slit where the magnet is disposed being close to the outer circumference of core and also on opposite sides of the radially outermost slit as shown in figure 2B, see also annotated figure below), the inner layer slit (i.e. radially innermost slit in which magnet is disposed as shown in figure 2B, see also annotated figure below) having a curved shape that is convex toward a central side of the rotor iron core (see figure 2B, see also annotated figure below), and a permanent magnet (i.e. magnet in the radially innermost slit as shown in figure 2B, see also annotated figure below) is disposed in the inner layer slit (see figure 2B, see also annotated figure below). Murakami et al. however do not specifically disclose the outer layer slit being disposed along an outer circumferential edge portion of the rotor iron core.
Nashiki et al. disclose an outer layer slit (i.e. radially outermost slit 4, see figure 7) disposed along an outer circumferential edge portion of the rotor core (reference numeral 2, see figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer layer slit disposed along an outer circumferential edge portion of the rotor core as disclosed by Nashiki et al. for the outer layer slit of Murakami et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating high efficiency in the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, Murakami et al. disclose the permanent magnet (i.e. magnet disposed in the inner layer slit, see figure 2B, also see annotated figure above of Murakami et al.) being disposed in a central portion of the inner layer slit (see figure 2B, also see annotated figure above of Murakami et al.).
For claims 3 and 5, Murakami et al. further disclose voids at both ends of the slit (see column 3, lines 62-65, also see annotated figure above of Murakami et al.), i.e. wherein in the slit group, portions other than a portion in which the permanent magnet is contained are hollow or are filled with a non-magnetic material.
Claim(s) 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. in view of Nashiki et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Yen et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2021/0296948 A1).
For claims 4 and 6-8, Murakami et al. in view of Nashiki et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a pump device comprising: a pump body, and the synchronous reluctance motor according to claim 1 (and also according to claims 2, 3, and 5), which is a motor serving as a drive source of the pump body. Yen et al. disclose a pump having the motor (see paragraph [0047]), which when applied to the motor of Murakami et al. in view of Nashiki et al. would disclose a pump device comprising: a pump body, and the synchronous reluctance motor from claims 1-3 and 5 which is a motor serving as a drive source of the pump body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pump as disclosed by Yen et al. as an apparatus for which the motor of Murakami et al. in view of Nashiki et al. is driving for predictably providing a desirable means for properly operating the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX W MOK whose telephone number is (571)272-9084. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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.
/ALEX W MOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights