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 .
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 7 – 9 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.
Regarding Claim 7, lines 4 – 6 states “an angle formed between two first magnetic bodies of each of the plurality of first magnetic body groups being different from an angle formed between two first magnetic bodies of another one of the plurality of first magnetic body groups”. Fundamentally, an angle is formed by two lines that meet at a center point of origin therefore, it is unclear within the claim where the center point of origin is for the two first magnetic bodies of each of the plurality of first magnetic body groups and two first magnetic bodies of another one of the plurality of first magnetic body groups that form their respective angles. Thus, the claim is rejected. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted that the respective angles being formed have a center point of origin within the rotor. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 8, it is rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, lines 1 – 3 states “wherein an angle between two outermost magnetic bodies of the magnetic pole unit is smaller than a central angle corresponding to the magnetic pole unit in the rotor”. Fundamentally, an angle is formed by two lines that meet at a center point of origin therefore, it is unclear within the claim where the center point of origin is between two outermost magnetic bodies of the magnetic pole unit that form the angle. Thus, the claim is rejected. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted that the angle being formed has a center point of origin within the rotor. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murakami (US 20060284507 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Murakami discloses a rotor (31) for a disc motor (axial air gap-type motor) (Murakami Para [0037] lines 1 – 3),
the rotor being divided into a plurality of magnetic pole units in a circumferential direction of the rotor (see below in annotated Murakami Fig. 5),
PNG
media_image1.png
522
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and each of the plurality of magnetic pole units comprising at least two magnetic bodies (permanent magnets 31a) (see above in annotated Murakami Fig. 5),
wherein in the circumferential direction of the rotor (see above in annotated Murakami Fig. 5), the magnetic bodies of each of the plurality of magnetic pole units have a same magnetization direction and the magnetic bodies of any two adjacent magnetic pole units have opposite magnetization directions in the circumferential direction of the rotor (annotated Murakami Fig. 5 above discloses the permanent magnets 31a of each magnetic pole unit have the same magnetization and permanent magnets 31a of adjacent magnetic pole units have opposite magnetization directions.
Regarding Claim 2, Murakami discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the rotor further comprises a plurality of magnetic conductors (rotor cores 31c) arranged at intervals in the circumferential direction (Murakami Fig. 5),
and wherein any two adjacent magnetic conductors have one of the plurality of magnetic conductors (rotor core 31e) embedded between the two adjacent magnetic conductors (Murakami Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Murakami discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of magnetic pole units is evenly distributed in the circumferential direction of the rotor (see above in Murakami Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Murakami discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of magnetic pole units comprises at least one first magnetic body group each comprising two first magnetic bodies (annotated Murakami Fig. 5 above discloses two permanent magnets 31a that forms the first magnetic group in each magnetic pole unit),
the two first magnetic bodies being symmetrically distributed along a center line of the magnetic pole unit (above in annotated Murakami Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Murakami discloses the rotor of the disk motor according to claim 4, wherein the magnetic pole unit further comprises one second magnetic body (permanent magnet 31a2) disposed on the center line (Murakami Fig. 4A discloses permanent magnet 31a2 that is along a center line between permanent magnets 31a1 and 31a3).
Regarding Claim 6, Murakami discloses the rotor according to claim 5, wherein the first magnetic body and the second magnetic body have different sizes in the magnetization direction (Murakami Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 9, Murakami discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein an angle between two outermost magnetic bodies of the magnetic pole unit (indicated by purple lines) is smaller than a central angle corresponding to the magnetic pole unit in the rotor (indicated by green lines) (see above in annotated Murakami Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Murakami discloses a disc motor (axial air gap-type motor) (Murakami Para [0037] lines 1 – 2),
comprising a stator (20) and the rotor according to claim 1 (Murakami Fig. 1),
the stator and the rotor being arranged at intervals in an axial direction of the rotor (Murakami Fig. 1).
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:
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.
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.
Claims 7 – 8, 10 – 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Cho et al. (US 20130088112 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Murakami discloses the rotor according to claim 4.
Murakami does not disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of magnetic pole units comprises a plurality of first magnetic body groups;
and wherein in one of the plurality of magnetic pole units,
two first magnetic bodies of each first magnetic body group are angled to each other,
an angle formed between two first magnetic bodies of each of the plurality of first magnetic body groups being different from an angle formed between two first magnetic bodies of another one of the plurality of first magnetic body groups.
Murakami and Cho et al. structurally disclose:
PNG
media_image2.png
547
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the plurality of magnetic pole units (of annotated Murakami Fig. 5 above) comprises a plurality of first magnetic body groups (of annotated Cho et al. Fig. 4B below);
and wherein in one of the plurality of magnetic pole units (of annotated Murakami Fig. 5 above),
two first magnetic bodies (permanent magnets 410 and 411) of each first magnetic body group are angled to each other (of annotated Cho et al. Fig. 4B),
an angle formed between two first magnetic bodies of each of the plurality of first magnetic body groups (indicated by yellow lines) being different from an angle formed between two first magnetic bodies of another one of the plurality of first magnetic body groups (indicated by blue lines) (of annotated Cho et al. Fig. 4B shown above).
Murakami and Cho et al. disclose a plurality of permanent magnets therefore, Cho et al. constitutes prior art. Cho et al. discloses a rotor having a plurality of magnets that have permanent magnets of respective magnet groups angled towards each other. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein each of the plurality of magnetic pole units comprises a plurality of first magnetic body groups; and wherein in one of the plurality of magnetic pole units, two first magnetic bodies of each first magnetic body group are angled to each other, and an angle formed between two first magnetic bodies of each of the plurality of first magnetic body groups being different from an angle formed between two first magnetic bodies of another one of the plurality of first magnetic body groups of structurally disclosed Murakami and Cho et al. for the purpose of increasing magnetic flux towards an angled direction in the rotor core of the disc motor.
Regarding Claim 8, Murakami and Cho et al. disclose the rotor according to claim 7.
Murakami and Cho et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein in one of the plurality of magnetic pole units, the first magnetic bodies of at least two first magnetic body groups have different sizes in the magnetization direction.
However, since Murakami and Cho et al. structurally discloses at least two first magnetic bodies of at least two first magnetic body groups, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify the at least two first magnetic bodies to have different sizes in the magnetization direction to optimize the concentration, pull strength, and magnetic field range of the at least two first magnetic bodies of one of the plurality of magnetic pole units.
As a result, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of structurally disclosed Murakami and Cho et al. so wherein in one of the plurality of magnetic pole units, the first magnetic bodies of at least two first magnetic body groups have different sizes in the magnetization direction so as to optimize the concentration, pull strength, and magnetic field range of the at least two first magnetic bodies of one of the plurality of magnetic pole units.
Regarding Claim 10, Murakami discloses the rotor according to claim 1.
Murakami does not disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of magnetic pole units has at least one sector-shaped magnetic body.
Murakami and Cho et al. structurally discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of magnetic pole units (of annotated Murakami Fig. 5 above) has at least one sector-shaped magnetic body (of Cho et al. Fig 4B).
Murakami and Cho et al. disclose a plurality of permanent magnets therefore, Cho et al. constitutes prior art. Cho et al. discloses a rotor core having a plurality of magnets that have permanent magnets that are sector-shaped embedded within the rotor core. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein each of the plurality of magnetic pole units has at least one sector-shaped magnetic body of structurally disclosed Murakami and Cho et al. for the purpose of ensuring a consistent magnetic field between the magnetic bodies and the magnetic conductors of the rotor core.
Regarding Claim 11, Murakami discloses the rotor according to claim 1.
Murakami does not disclose:
wherein the magnetic bodies are provided in a skewed pole configuration.
Cho et al. discloses:
wherein the magnetic bodies are provided in a skewed pole configuration (Cho et al. Fig. 4B).
Murakami and Cho et al. disclose a plurality of permanent magnets therefore, Cho et al. constitutes prior art. Cho et al. discloses a rotor core having a plurality of magnets that have permanent magnets in a skewed pole configuration within the rotor core. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the magnetic bodies are provided in a skewed pole configuration of Cho et al. for the purpose of mitigating cogging torque in the rotor of the disc motor.
Regarding Claim 13, Murakami discloses the disc motor according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12).
Murakami does not explicitly disclose:
an electric device, comprising the disc motor according to claim 12.
Murakami and Cho et al. structurally discloses:
an electric device (hybrid/electronic vehicle) (of Cho et al. Para [0002] last sentence),
comprising the disc motor according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Murakami and Cho et al. disclose a axial air gap motors therefore, Cho et al. constitutes prior art. Cho et al. discloses an axial air gap motor that can be used in hybrid vehicles and electronic vehicles. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein an electric device, comprising the disc motor according to claim 12 of structurally disclosed Murakami and Cho et al. for the purpose giving power to the electric device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L PERKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4629. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 17:00pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached on (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.
/THEODORE L PERKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834