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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Tsukamoto et al. (WO 2021/199419) in view of Naito et al. (US 6555940).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukamoto et al. discloses:
A rotating electric machine (abstract) comprising:
a rotor (2) having a permanent magnet (22) embedded in a magnet-receiving hole (211) of a rotor core (21);
a stator (3) that applies a rotating magnetic field to the rotor (para 29); and
a magnetic sensor (41) that detects rotation information of the rotor (para 6),
wherein the permanent magnet (22) has a shape that is inward in a radial direction of the rotor (paras 17, 37 and Fig 2), and
the magnetic sensor (41) is arranged to face the permanent magnet (22, paras 41-44, Fig 1) and configured to be capable of detecting magnetic flux from the permanent magnet (paras 41-44).
Tsukamoto et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the permanent magnet has a folded shape that is convex inward in a radial direction of the rotor.
Naito et al. teach an apparatus wherein the permanent magnet (PM, Fig 6) has a folded shape that is convex inward in a radial direction of the rotor (Fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective foiling of the invention to modify Tsukamoto et al. wherein the permanent magnet has a folded shape that is convex inward in a radial direction of the rotor, as Naito et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is it would provide a machine which has a distortion factor of the waveform of induced voltage that is decreased, and also has decreased torque ripples, cogging torque, noises and vibrations (C10 ll 38-55 of Naito et al.).
Regarding claim 2/1, Tsukamoto et al. in view of Naito et al. disclose the invention as discussed above.
Since Tsukamoto et al. already teaches the use of the permanent magnet (22) and the use of a magnetic sensor (41) arranged to face the permanent magnet (22, paras 41-44, Figs 1 and 4), a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of choosing
an embedding depth Lm and a sensor position Ps are set to satisfy Ps<Lm, the embedding depth Lm denotes a distance on a circumferential centerline of the permanent magnet from an outer circumferential surface of the rotor core to an inside surface of a curved portion of the permanent magnet, and the sensor position Ps denotes a distance from the outer circumferential surface of the rotor core to a center of the magnetic sensor in an axial view, since it would depend on cooling, available space surrounding components, noise, vibrations ease of maintenance and repair.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Tsukamoto et al. in view of Naito et al. to have an embedding depth Lm and a sensor position Ps are set to satisfy Ps<Lm, the embedding depth Lm denotes a distance on a circumferential centerline of the permanent magnet from an outer circumferential surface of the rotor core to an inside surface of a curved portion of the permanent magnet, and the sensor position Ps denotes a distance from the outer circumferential surface of the rotor core to a center of the magnetic sensor in an axial view.
The motivation to do so would depend on cooling, available space surrounding components, noise, vibrations ease of maintenance and repair.
Regarding claim 3/2, Tsukamoto et al. in view of Naito et al. disclose the invention as discussed above.
Since Tsukamoto et al. already teaches the use of the permanent magnet (22) and the use of a magnetic sensor (41) arranged to face the permanent magnet (22, paras 41-44, Figs 1 and 4), a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of choosing
wherein the ratio Ps/Lm of the sensor position Ps to the embedding depth Lm is set to satisfy 0.10≤Ps/Lm≤0.93, since it would depend on cooling, available space surrounding components, noise, vibrations ease of maintenance and repair.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Tsukamoto et al. in view of Naito et al. to have wherein the ratio Ps/Lm of the sensor position Ps to the embedding depth Lm is set to satisfy 0.10≤Ps/Lm≤0.93.
The motivation to do so would depend on cooling, available space surrounding components, noise, vibrations ease of maintenance and repair.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 4/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the rotor core has an axial end face formed as a flat surface, the permanent magnet has a protruding portion that protrudes from the axial end face of the rotor core, and the magnetic sensor is configured to be capable of detecting the magnetic flux from the protruding portion of the permanent magnet.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 5-9 are also allowable for depending on claim 4.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834