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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“the first notch and the second notch are flush with each other” in claim 5,
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recited the limitation “the notch width of the first notch” should be changed to –[[the]] notch width of the first notch--, for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recited “the notch height” and “the thickness” should be changed to –[[the]] a notch height—and –[[the]] a thickness—(respectively).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5, 6 and 10-14 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 5 recites the limitation "the side of the winding groove" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side of the winding groove" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the range of the ratio" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the notch width of the first standard lamination" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the notch width of the stator lamination" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the notch width of the second standard lamination" in lines 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the notch width of the stator lamination" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " wherein the stator lamination is rotatable unidirectionally or bidirectionally relative to the stator structure ". However, as best understood, both of the stator lamination and stator structure are stationary component therefore they cannot be rotatable unidirectionally or bidirectionally relative with respect to each other. Therefore, such limitation is vague and indefinite.
For examination purpose, such limitation has been interpreted as “the stator lamination is rotatable unidirectionally or bidirectionally relative to the rotor structure”.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected for their dependency on claim 12.
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 1-3, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2017/0018980 A1).
RE claim 1, Yang teaches a stator lamination 3 (Fig.1 and ¶ 43) comprising: a stator yoke 31 and a plurality of stator teeth 32 arranged on the stator yoke 31, wherein the plurality of stator teeth 32 are circumferentially distributed around an axis of the stator lamination 3, and a winding groove 34 (where winding 33 inserted, see Fig.6) is formed between two adjacent stator teeth 32; and tooth shoes 322 (Fig.6), arranged on the ends of the plurality of stator teeth 32 distant from the stator yoke 31; wherein a first notch (N1) and a second notch (N2) (see annotated Fig.2 below) arranged in a radial direction of the stator teeth 32 are formed between two adjacent tooth shoes 322, and the notch width of the first notch (N1) is different from that of the second notch (N2) (see annotated Fig.2 below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First notch (N1))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second notch (N2))]
PNG
media_image1.png
678
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 2/1, Yang teaches the first notch (N1) is provided at a radial inner side of the second notch (N2), and the notch width of the first notch (N1) is greater than that of the second notch (N2) (Fig.2).
RE claim 3/2, Yang teaches the first notch (N1) is symmetrical relative to the axis of symmetry of the two adjacent stator teeth 32 (Fig.2).
RE claim 9/1, Yang teaches the plurality of stator laminations are stacked (in layers, see ¶ 43).
RE claim 12, Yang teaches a motor structure (Fig.1) comprising: a rotor structure 5; and the stator structure 3 according to claim 1, arranged coaxially with the stator lamination 3, wherein the stator lamination 31 is rotatable unidirectionally or bidirectionally relative to the rotor structure 5 (it is noted that there are only two possible scenarios where a rotor and stator are rotated with respect to each other, unidirectionally or bidirectionally. Therefore, it is inherent that the rotor 5 is rotatable unidirectionally or bidirectionally with respect to the stator 3).
RE claim 13/12, Yang teaches the rotor structure 5 is provided with a plurality of permanent magnet slots 53, and the plurality of permanent magnet slots 53 are arranged in a circle along the circumference of the rotor structure 5 (Fig.1).
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonekura (US 2004/0130236 A1).
RE claim 1, Yonekura teaches a stator lamination 1 (Fig.1 and ¶ 27) comprising: a stator yoke 1a and a plurality of stator teeth 3 arranged on the stator yoke 1a, wherein the plurality of stator teeth 3 are circumferentially distributed around an axis of the stator lamination 1a, and a winding groove 5 is formed between two adjacent stator teeth 3; and tooth shoes (1c, 1d), arranged on the ends of the plurality of stator teeth 3 distant from the stator yoke 1a; wherein a first notch (N1) and a second notch (N2) arranged in a radial direction of the stator teeth 3 are formed between two adjacent tooth shoes (1c, 1d), and the notch width of the first notch (N1) is different from that of the second notch (N2).
RE claim 2/1, Yonekura teaches the first notch (N1) is provided at a radial inner side of the second notch (N2), and the notch width of the first notch (N1) is greater than that of the second notch (N2)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second notch (N2))][AltContent: textbox (First notch (N1))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
474
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RE claim 3/1, Yonekura teaches the first notch (N1) is symmetrical relative to the axis of symmetry of the two adjacent stator teeth 3 (see Fig.1D for lamination type 11b has symmetrical notch).
RE claim 4/1, Yonekura teaches the first notch (N1) is asymmetric relative to the axis of symmetry of the two adjacent stator teeth 3 (see Fig.1C, 1E for asymmetrical configuration of lamination type 11a, 11c).
RE claim 5/4, as best understood, Yonekura teaches on the tooth shoes at the side of the winding groove 2, the first notch and the second notch are flush with each other (Fig.1A because there is no protrusion such as Fig.1d), the first and second notch are flush, flat with respect to each other).
RE claim 6/4, Yonekura teaches on the tooth shoes (1c, 1d) at the two sides of the winding groove 5, a first tooth shoe length corresponding to the first notch and a second tooth shoe length corresponding to the second notch have different ratios (Fig.1C or 1E).
RE claim 9/1, Yonekura teaches a stator structure 10 (Fig.1A, 1B) comprising a plurality of the stator laminations 1 according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of stator laminations are stacked (Fig.1A, 1B).
RE claim 10/9, Yonekura teaches a plurality of first standard laminations 11a, wherein the first standard laminations 11b and the stator laminations are stacked along an axial direction of the stator structure; wherein the notch width of the first standard lamination is smaller than the notch width of the stator lamination 11a (see Fig.1C, 1D, 1E for stator having different notch width).
RE claim 11/9, Yonekura teaches a plurality of second standard laminations 11c, wherein the second standard laminations 11c and the stator laminations are stacked along the axial direction of the stator structure; wherein the notch width 11c of the second standard lamination is larger than the notch width of the stator lamination 11b (see Fig.1C, 1D, 1E for stator having different notch width).
RE claim 12/1, Yonekura teaches a motor structure (Fig.1 and ¶ 6) comprising: a rotor structure 20; and the stator structure 10 according to claim 1, arranged coaxially with the stator lamination 1, wherein the stator lamination is rotatable unidirectionally or bidirectionally relative to the rotor structure 20 (it is noted that there are only two possible scenarios where a rotor and stator are rotated with respect to each other, unidirectionally or bidirectionally. Therefore, it is inherent that the rotor 20 is rotatable unidirectionally or bidirectionally with respect to the stator).
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 Yang in view of Stephens et al. (US 5773908) and De Filippis et al. (US 2003/0107290 A1).
RE claim 7/1, Yang has been discussed above. Yang does not teach the notch height corresponding to the second notch is larger than the thickness of the stator lamination.
Stephens suggests that the notch height (d) of stator teeth is a result effective variable whose value can be adjusted (see Fig.5, 6) to obtain desirable parking torque characteristic (col.7 line 50 to col.8 line 5).
In addition, De Filippis that dimension of the notch width is a result effective variable (Z) whose value can be adjusted and optimized by computer using a magnetic optimization program (¶ 28) such that desirable cogging torque can be obtained (¶ 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 Yang by having the notch height corresponding to the second notch is larger than the thickness of the stator lamination, as suggested by Stephens and De Filippis, for the same reasons as discussed above.
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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of De Filippis et al. (US 20030107290 A1).
RE claim 8/1, Yang has been discussed above. Yang does not teach the range of the ratio of the notch width of the first notch to the notch width of the second notch is 1~4.
De Filippis that dimension of the notch width is a result effective variable (Z) whose value can be adjusted and optimized by computer using a magnetic optimization program (¶ 28) such that desirable cogging torque can be obtained (¶ 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 Yang by having the range of the ratio of the notch width of the first notch to the notch width of the second notch is 1~4, as suggested by De Filippis, for the same reasons as discussed above.
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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekura in view of Deng et al. (US 2021/0175785 A1).
RE claim 14/1, Yonekura has been discussed above. Yonekura does not teach the motor has a motor housing and utilized in a laundry treatment apparatus.
Yonekura suggests that the disclosed permanent magnet motor have the benefit of suppress torque fluctuation in an IPM motor without increasing the length of wire wound around the stator teeth (¶ 5). Deng evidenced that permanent magnet motor is well-known to be utilized within a wide range of applications including laundry appliance (¶ 24, 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the motor disclosed by Yonekura in any applicable application such as laundry appliance as evidenced by Yonekura, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Conclusion
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