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 . Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the specification does not teach how to uniquely draw a center line to create the first, second and third angle. While, according to the specification, each center line is required to be parallel to two corresponding and previously drawn tangent lines, applicant has not disclosed how each tangent point is selected. Even in fig. 2 (see the annotated fig. 2, below), the drawn tangent lines and the center lines L1 and L3 are intersecting lines rather than being parallel. This contradicts the applicant’s own guidelines and indicates there is no unique way to select two tangent points for each through-hole.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-12 depend on Claim 1 and are rejected because they depend on the rejected Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
In Claim 1, the following expressions are indefinite: “an end of the through-hole”,
“a circumferential center of each through-hole”, “a center line at an end of the through-hole”, and consequently: “a first angle”, “a second angle” and “a third angle.”
Claims 2-12 depend on Claim 1 and are rejected because they depend on an indefinite claim that can’t be interpreted properly.
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 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, 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumiya et al. (JP 2001211618 A).
PNG
media_image2.png
427
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Sumiya discloses a rotor (1, fig. 2A), rotatable around a central axis, having a plurality of through-hole groups (thru holes, annotated fig. 2A) that penetrates through the rotor in an axial direction (“The first windows 2a to 2d have a slit shape curved as viewed from the plane side of the rotor core 1, and are formed to be long in the axial direction of the rotor core 1, respectively.”), each through-hole group having a plurality of through-holes distributed in a radial direction (2a- 2d, fig. 2A), and on a section of the rotor perpendicular to the central axis (radial cross-section), a straight line passing through a circumferential center of each through-hole and the central axis being a q-axis (q-axis, annotated fig. 2A); wherein
the rotor further has auxiliary holes (aux holes, annotated fig. 2A);
each auxiliary hole is located between every two radially adjacent through-holes (see fig. 2A);
a sectional area of each auxiliary hole is less than a sectional area of each through-hole (see fig. 2A);
a length of each auxiliary hole in one direction is greater than a width of the auxiliary hole in another direction perpendicular to the one direction (see fig. 2A);
an included angle between a center line at an end of the through-hole adjacent to a radially inner side of the auxiliary hole and the q-axis is a first angle (a1, annotated fig. 2A);
an included angle between a center line at an end of the through-hole adjacent to a radially outer side of the auxiliary hole and the q-axis is a second angle (a2, annotated fig. 2A);
an included angle between a center line at an end of each auxiliary hole and the q-axis is a third angle (a3, annotated fig. 2A); and
the third angle is greater than or equal to the first angle, and the third angle is less than or equal to the second angle (see the three angles in annotated fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 7, Sumiya discloses the rotor of claim 1, wherein
the number of the plurality of through-holes is 3 or 4 or more (4 through-holes are shown in fig. 2A, they are 2a-2d) ;
an area between the radially adjacent first through-hole (2a) and second through-hole (2b) among the plurality of through-holes in a radial direction is a first area (A1, annotated fig. 2A), the first through-hole is located on a radially outer side of the second through-hole, and among the plurality of through-holes, the first through-hole is located on the radially outermost side (see fig. 2A);
an area between the radially adjacent third through-hole (2c) and fourth through-hole (2d) among the plurality of through-holes in a radial direction is a second area (A2, annotated fig. 2A), or an area between the second through-hole and the third through-hole in the radial direction is a second area;
when the number of the through-holes is 3, the second through-hole is located on a radially outer side of the third through-hole;
when the number of the through-holes is 4 or more, the third through-hole (2c) is located on a radially outer side of the fourth through-hole (2d, see annotated fig. 2A); and
the number of the auxiliary holes is at least 2 (see annotated fig. 2A), wherein at least one of the auxiliary holes is located in the first area, and at least another of the auxiliary holes is located in the second area (see annotated fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 10, Sumiya discloses a motor comprising a rotor of claim 1 (see the title: “SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR” and the abstract: “PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a motor which can assure the mechanical strength and increase a reluctance torque.”).
Regarding claim 12, Sumiya discloses a motor comprising a rotor of claim 7 (as discussed regarding claim 10).
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.
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) 5, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al. (JP 2001211618 A).
Regarding claim 5, Sumiya discloses the rotor of claim 1, Sumiya also discloses in an alternative design (see the marked portion in annotated fig. 6, below) that:
PNG
media_image3.png
500
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
each auxiliary hole has at least one partition wall, and the partition wall divides the auxiliary hole into at least two sub-holes which are distributed in a length direction of the auxiliary hole and not communicated with each other.
Regarding claim 9, Sumiya discloses the rotor of claim 1, Sumiya, in the third embodiment, further discloses wherein the rotor further comprises a magnet, and the magnet is provided in at least one of the through-holes (see magnets 3 in fig. 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
241
271
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sumiya discloses a motor (as discussed regarding claim 10) comprising a rotor of claim 5 (Sumiya discloses several embodiments of the rotor).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al. (JP 2001211618 A) in view of Takeuchi et al. (WO 2018051690 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sumiya discloses the rotor of claim 1, Sumiya also for other embodiments of rotor discloses: wherein
a spacing width between each auxiliary hole and the through-hole adjacent to the radially inner side of the auxiliary hole is a first width (first width, annotated fig. 5);
a spacing width between each auxiliary hole and the through-hole adjacent to the radially outer side of the auxiliary hole is a second width (second width, annotated fig. 5); and
PNG
media_image5.png
487
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the first width is greater than or equal to the second width, and the first width is less than or equal to the second width.
PNG
media_image6.png
556
734
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, with reference to fig. 8, Takeuchi teaches all dimensions of through holes are result effective variables. Determining values and ranges for results effective variables are within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the first width is greater than or equal to 2 times of the second width, and the first width is less than or equal to 3 times of the second width.
Regarding claim 3, Sumiya in view of Takeuchi discloses the rotor of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the width of each auxiliary hole is greater than or equal to 0.9 times of the second width, and the width of the auxiliary hole is less than or equal to 1.1 times of the second width.
However, as discussed regarding claim 2, the width of each auxiliary hole and the second width are result effective variables and determining a range for them is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the width of each auxiliary hole is greater than or equal to 0.9 times of the second width, and the width of the auxiliary hole is less than or equal to 1.1 times of the second width.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al. (JP 2001211618 A) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20210106794 A).
Regarding claim 4, Sumiya discloses the rotor of claim 1, but is silent about: wherein the length of each auxiliary hole is less than or equal to 3 times of the width of the auxiliary hole.
PNG
media_image7.png
332
421
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Referring to Fig. 5, above, Kim teaches that such dimensions are result effective variables (See: “The height h of the first magnetic flux wall 1271 is determined according to the limitation of the minimum distance between the first magnetic flux walls 1271 . As the height (h) of the first magnetic flux wall 1271 increases, the distance D between the first magnetic flux walls 1271 becomes narrower, so that the distance D between the first magnetic flux walls 1271 becomes the first bridge. The height h of the first magnetic flux wall 1271 may be adjusted within a range that does not deviate from a ratio of 1/2 to 1 compared to the length of the portion 1261. The width w of the magnetic flux wall 127 is preferably greater than 0 compared to the length of the permanent magnet 123 and formed in a ratio of 10% or less. If the width w of the magnetic flux wall 127 is too large, there is a problem in that the area of the magnetic path through which the magnet passes from the permanent magnet 123 is narrowed.”).
Determining a range for such variables is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the length of each auxiliary hole is less than or equal to 3 times of the width of the auxiliary hole.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al. (JP 2001211618 A) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20210106794 A) and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (WO 2018051690 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sumiya as modified in view of Kim in claim 5 discloses the rotor of claim 5, wherein but is silent about: along the length direction of each auxiliary hole, the partition wall has a size greater than or equal to the width of the auxiliary hole, and less than or equal to 1.5 times of the width of the auxiliary hole.
As thought be Takeuchi and discussed regarding claim 2, the size of partition wall is a result effective variable (see the marked partition walls in fig. 8 in Takeuchi) and determining a range for such a variables is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: along the length direction of each auxiliary hole, the partition wall has a size greater than or equal to the width of the auxiliary hole, and less than or equal to 1.5 times of the width of the auxiliary hole.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al. (JP 2001211618 A) in view of Sirdiropoulos N. (US 20170373573 A).
Regarding claim 8, Sumiya discloses the rotor of claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein the rotor also has a first auxiliary hole; and in the section of the rotor perpendicular to the central axis, the first auxiliary hole is located on a d-axis.
PNG
media_image8.png
524
519
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Sirdiropoulos teaches a similar rotor structure wherein the rotor also has a first auxiliary hole (31, fig. 1); and in the section of the rotor perpendicular to the central axis, the first auxiliary hole is located on a d-axis (d-axis, annotated fig. 1, above). According to Sirdiropoulos, this is done to reduce the weight of the rotor (“[0026] The rotor may also be provided with air voids 31 arranged between each pole of the rotor. The air void does not influence the inductance of a pole, but minimizes the amount of material used in the rotor, which allows for a higher efficiency of the electric machine and a lower moment of inertia of the rotor.”).
For “a higher efficiency of the electric machine and a lower moment of inertia of the rotor”, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in such a way that: the rotor also has a first auxiliary hole; and in the section of the rotor perpendicular to the central axis, the first auxiliary hole is located on a d-axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834