DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 9, 12-14, 18, 20-21,24-26, 34, 36-37, 41, 46, 49, 53, 66, 72 of U.S. Application No. 18/573,237 filed on 12/21/2023 are presented for examination. Claims 3-8, 10-11,15-17,19,22-23, 27-33, 35,38-40, 42-45, 47-48, 50-52, 54-65, 67-71 have been cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023, and 12/19/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the numeral reference “22” in fig. 8B should read “21”. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 9, 12-14, 18, 20-21,24-26, 34, 36-37, 41, 46, 49, 53, 66, 72 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 1 recites, “…wherein said stator and rotor are configured to rotate relative to one another about a common axis…”. It is known that the stator is a stationary member that does not usually rotate. It is not clear how the stator is configured to rotate relative to the rotor? the specifications does not provide any explanation or structural provision that support such claim. For examination purposes, the limitations is understood as “…wherein said rotor is configured to rotate relative to the stator about a common axis…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 9, 12, 14, 18, 20, 25-26, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King et al. (US 2017/0250637; Hereinafter, “King”).
Regarding claim 1: King discloses an axial flux permanent magnet synchronous motor (10; fig. 1-3, and para [0038]) for use in driving a washing machine (intended use limitation that has not been given a patentable weight), comprising:
The examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
a. A stator (12) comprising a plurality of stator coils (28) arranged about an annular core (22, 25) of the stator (12), and an insulating structure (bobbins 26) to electrically insulate the stator coils (since bobbins are made of thermoplastic material; para [0042]); and
b. A rotor (14) concentric with the stator (12) and carrying a plurality of permanent magnets (each of the individual magnet poles forming 36);
wherein said stator (12) and rotor (14) are configured to rotate relative to one another about a common axis (center of shaft 21) through the interaction of magnetic fields generated by the stator coils (28) and permanent magnets (36), and wherein the rotor (14) and stator (12) are spaced relative to one another along the common axis so that the magnetic flux path (the axial flus, of the axial flux machine) between the rotor (14) magnets (36) and stator coils (28) is oriented in the axial direction (since the motor is axial machine).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the motor (10) of claim 1 comprising a single rotor (14) and a single stator (12).
Regarding claim 9/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the ratio of magnetic poles (25) carried by the stator (12) to magnetic poles carried by the rotor is 3:4 (6 magnetic poles 25 with their coils 28: 8 magnetic poles of magnets 36).
Regarding claim 12/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the stator coils (28) are electrically connected to one another in a 3 phase configuration (para [0008], and fig. 3B, 4B).
Regarding claim 14/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the stator core (22, 25) comprises a plurality of teeth (25) extending in the axial direction (fig. 2A), and wherein each one of said stator coils (28) is carried by a corresponding one of said plurality of teeth (25).
Regarding claim 18/14/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 14 and further discloses that the teeth (25) have a tipless shape (fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 20/14/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 14 and further discloses that the insulating structure comprises a plurality of bobbins (26), each mounted upon a one of said plurality of teeth (25) and carrying a one of said plurality of stator coils (28).
Regarding claim 25/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that that each magnetic pole (represented by N or S in fig. 2A) of the rotor (14) is represented by a single discrete piece of magnetic material (clearly has lines separating the pieces as seen in fig. 1, and 2A).
Regarding claim 26/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that that said plurality of permanent magnets (the individuals forming magnets 36) are arranged about an annular region of the rotor (14) concentric with the annular core of the stator (22, 25).
Regarding claim 36/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the rotor (14) comprises a rotor hub (32) for connecting the rotor (14) to a drive shaft (21) of the washing machine (the intended use of the motor), optionally wherein the rotor hub is made of steel.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Shim et al. (US 2006/0055275; Hereinafter, “Shim”).
Regarding claim 13/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the stator core is spiral wound from electrical steel strips.
Shim teaches (in fig. 11) forming the stator core of spiral wound from electrical steel strips (para [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the stator core of King of spiral wound from electrical steel strips since it is well known in the art that wound/helical core minimizes material waste, reduces assembly steps, and increases motor efficiency.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Okada et al. (US 2004/0263015; Hereinafter, “Okada”).
Regarding claim 21/20/14/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 20 but does not disclose that one or more of the plurality of bobbins comprise a guide structure configured to maintain a physical separation between the electrical connections of adjacent stator coils.
Okada discloses forming one or more of the plurality of bobbins (20) comprise a guide structure (24) configured to maintain a physical separation between the electrical connections of adjacent stator coils (fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bobbins of King of one or more of the plurality of bobbins comprise a guide structure configured to maintain a physical separation between the electrical connections of adjacent stator coils as disclosed by Okada to increase the safety of the motor by securing its electrical connections.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Ampela et al. (US 5710476; Hereinafter, “Ampela”).
Regarding claim 24/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the plurality of permanent magnets are each a discrete piece of magnetic material formed in a rectangular shape, or alternatively, are each a discrete piece of magnetic material formed in a tapered shape.
Ampela discloses the plurality of permanent magnets (fig. 4) are each a discrete piece of magnetic material formed in a rectangular shape (col. 4, line 13), or alternatively, are each a discrete piece of magnetic material formed in a tapered shape.
Since King discloses the claimed invention except for the magnet rectangular shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to shape the magnets as rectangles, since such a modification from the shape of magnets 36 would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or
shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 34, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0050702; Hereinafter, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 34/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the rotor is a moulded polymeric material.
Kim discloses the rotor (21b, 25) is a moulded polymeric material (para [0190], [0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the rotor of King of a moulded polymeric material as disclosed by Kim to increase the robustness of the rotor, and to ease its manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 37/36/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 36 but does not disclose that the rotor hub is insert moulded into the polymeric material of the rotor.
Kim discloses the rotor hub (of rotors 21b, and 25) is insert moulded into the polymeric material of the rotor (para [0190], [0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the rotor of King wherein the rotor hub is insert moulded into the polymeric material of the rotor as disclosed by Kim to increase the robustness of the rotor, and to ease its manufacturing process.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Yan et al. (US 2021/0135523; Hereinafter, “Yan”).
Regarding claim 34/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the rotor has a profile such that the height of the rotor is greatest at or near the rotor hub, and decreases at or toward the annular region.
Yan discloses (see fig. 4) the rotor (10) has a profile such that the height (d1) of the rotor is greatest at or near the rotor hub (fig. 4), and decreases at or toward the annular region (123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the rotor of King the rotor has a profile such that the height of the rotor is greatest at or near the rotor hub, and decreases at or toward the annular region as disclosed by Yan to increase the robustness of the rotor against the centrifugal forces.
Claims 46, 49, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Jeong et al et al. (WO 2015020454; Hereinafter, “Jeong”).
Regarding claim 46/1, 49/46, and 72/1: King discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that a fastening portion for attaching the stator to the body of the washing machine, and optionally wherein the fastening portion is formed as part of the stator itself; the fastening portion is configured to attach the stator to the rear of an outer drum of the washing machine; A washing machine comprising an outer cabinet, an outer drum suspended in the outer cabinet, and an inner drum housed within the outer drum and rotatable relative to the outer drum, wherein rotation of the inner drum is directly driven by an axial flux motor of claim 1.
Jeong discloses a fastening portion (including fixing pins 123; fig. 1-2) for attaching the stator (100) to the body of the washing machine (tub 20), and optionally wherein the fastening portion is formed as part of the stator itself; the fastening portion is configured to attach the stator (100) to the rear (rear wall 21) of an outer drum (20) of the washing machine (1); A washing machine (1) comprising an outer cabinet (10), an outer drum (20) suspended in the outer cabinet (10), and an inner drum (30) housed within the outer drum (20) and rotatable relative to the outer drum, wherein rotation of the inner drum (20) is directly driven by an axial flux motor (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
1019
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the motor of King to drive a washing machine wherein a fastening portion for attaching the stator to the body of the washing machine, and optionally wherein the fastening portion is formed as part of the stator itself; the fastening portion is configured to attach the stator to the rear of an outer drum of the washing machine; A washing machine comprising an outer cabinet, an outer drum suspended in the outer cabinet, and an inner drum housed within the outer drum and rotatable relative to the outer drum, wherein rotation of the inner drum is directly driven by an axial flux motor as disclosed by Jeong to take advantage of the excellent performance of King’s motor in the washing machine of Jeong.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 53, and 66 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834