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 statements (IDS) submitted on 5/31/2024, 12/3/2024, and 8/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al. (US 2020/0080246) in view of Maekawa et al. (US 2010/0126234).
In claim 1, Miyake discloses (Fig. 1-79) a washing machine (1) comprising: a casing (2); a laundry inlet (4) configured to load laundry on a top or side of the casing (2); a door (3) attached to the laundry inlet (4); a stationary tub (10) capable of storing water for washing the laundry; a rotary tub (11) formed as a container within the stationary tub (10) and configured to be rotatable; and a motor (12) configured to rotate the rotary tub (11), wherein the motor (12) comprises a rotor (20) configured to rotate about a rotation axis (40), and a stator (60) configured to face the rotor (20) with an air gap therebetween, and wherein the rotor (20) includes an annular magnetic pole body (22, 24) in which a plurality of magnets (24) having an arc-shaped cross-section are arranged in a circumferential direction of the rotor (20).
Miyake does not teach wherein the plurality of magnets of the annular magnetic pole body comprise two or more types of magnets having different numbers of magnetic poles.
However, Maekawa teaches a rotor (3) having a plurality of magnets (9a, 9b) of the annular magnetic pole body comprise two or more types of magnets ([0036-0037]) having different numbers of magnetic poles.
Therefore in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]).
In claim 2, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 1; furthermore Miyake teaches wherein p is a number of magnetic poles (P2; [0364]) of the rotor (20) and n is a number of slots (S; [0364]) in the stator (60).
Miyake does not teach given the above variable, the first magnets among the plurality of magnets has a number A (where A=p/|p-n| and is a natural number) of magnetic poles, and second magnets among the plurality of magnets has a number A+1 of magnetic poles.
However Maekawa further teaches wherein the first (9a) and second (9b) have a different amount of poles, respectively ([0036]).
Therefore further in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]), and since 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).
In claim 3, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 2; furthermore Miyake teaches wherein p is 48 and n is 36 ([0364]).
Miyake does not teach a number of the first magnets with four magnetic poles is 2, and a number of the second magnets with five magnetic poles is 8.
However Maekawa further teaches wherein the first (9a) and second (9b) have a different amount of poles, respectively within the framework that p is 48 and n is 36 ([0036]).
Therefore further in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]), and since 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).
In claim 8, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 2; furthermore Miyake teaches wherein the motor (12) has a slot combination such that a value of a magnetic pole pitch (β) is 2N (where β=p/|p-n| and N is a natural number).
In claim 9, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 1, with the exception of wherein, when a number p of magnetic poles in the rotor is 24 and a number n of slots in the stator is 36, the plurality of magnets comprise three 5-pole magnets and three 3-pole magnets.
However, Maekawa further teaches wherein the number of poles and slots is not limited and can be adjusted ([0072]).
Therefore further in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]), and since 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).
In claim 10, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 1, with the exception of wherein, when a number p of magnetic poles in the rotor is 32 and a number n of slots in the stator is 36, the plurality of magnets comprise three 4-pole magnets and four 5-pole magnets.
However, Maekawa further teaches wherein the number of poles and slots is not limited and can be adjusted ([0072]).
Therefore further in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]), and since 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).
In claim 11, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 1, with the exception of wherein, when a number p of magnetic poles in the rotor is 40 and a number n of slots in the stator is 36, the plurality of magnets comprise five 4-pole magnets and four 5-pole magnets.
However, Maekawa further teaches wherein the number of poles and slots is not limited and can be adjusted ([0072]).
Therefore further in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]), and since 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).
In claim 12, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 1; furthermore Miyake teaches wherein the motor (12) has a slot combination such that a value of a magnetic pole pitch (β) is 2N (where β=p/|p-n| and N is a natural number).
In claim 13, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 12; Miyake teaches wherein magnetic poles in each of the plurality of magnets (9a, 9b; as taught by Maekawa) include a specific magnet pole located at an end of the same side of each magnet, and magnetic poles in the plurality of magnets (9a, 9b; as taught by Maekawa) are sequentially classified into a plurality of groups including a first group to a β-th group corresponding to the value of the magnetic pole pitch (β), and when differences between numbers of specific magnetic poles included in each pair of two groups whose group numbers have a difference equal to N are summed together, the sum of the differences is less than or equal to half a number of the plurality of magnets (9a, 9b).
In claim 14, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 1; furthermore Miyake teaches wherein, when p is a number of magnetic poles (P2; [0364]) of the rotor (20) and n is a number of slots (S; [0364]) in the stator (60), the motor (12) has a pole-slot combination such that a value of a magnetic pole pitch (β) is 4N (where β=p/|p-n| and N is a natural number), magnetic poles in each of the plurality of magnets (9a, 9b; as taught by Maekawa) include a specific magnet pole located at an end of the same side of each magnet, and magnetic poles in the plurality of magnets are sequentially classified into a plurality of groups including a first group to a β-th group corresponding to the value of the magnetic pole pitch (β), and when differences between numbers of specific magnetic poles included in each pair of two groups whose group numbers have a difference equal to N are summed together, the sum of the differences is less than or equal to half a number of the plurality of magnets (9a, 9b; as taught by Maekawa).
In claim 15, Miyake teaches a home appliance (1) including a motor (12), wherein the motor (12) comprises: a rotor (20) rotating about a rotation axis (40); and a stator (60) configured to face the rotor (20) with an air gap therebetween, wherein the rotor (20) includes an annular magnetic pole body (22, 24) in which a plurality of magnets (24) having an arc-shaped cross-section are arranged in a circumferential direction of the rotor (20).
Miyake does not teach wherein the annular magnetic pole body includes two or more types of magnets having different numbers of magnetic poles.
However, Maekawa teaches a rotor (3) having a plurality of magnets (9a, 9b) of the annular magnetic pole body includes two or more types of magnets ([0036-0037]) having different numbers of magnetic poles.
Therefore in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]).
In claim 16, Miyake teaches a surface permanent magnet synchronous motor (12) comprising: a rotor (20) rotating about a rotation axis (40); and a stator (60) configured to face the rotor (20) with an air gap therebetween, wherein the rotor (20) includes an annular magnetic pole body (22, 24) in which a plurality of magnets (24) having an arc-shaped cross-section are arranged in a circumferential direction of the rotor (20).
Miyake does not teach wherein the annular magnetic pole body includes two or more types of magnets having different numbers of magnetic poles.
However, Maekawa teaches a rotor (3) having a plurality of magnets (9a, 9b) of the annular magnetic pole body includes two or more types of magnets ([0036-0037]) having different numbers of magnetic poles.
Therefore in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]).
In claim 17, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 16; furthermore Miyake teaches wherein p is a number of magnetic poles (P2; [0364]) of the rotor (20) and n is a number of slots (S; [0364]) in the stator (60).
Miyake does not teach given the above variable, the first magnets among the plurality of magnets has a number A (where A=p/|p-n| and is a natural number) of magnetic poles, and second magnets among the plurality of magnets has a number A+1 of magnetic poles.
However Maekawa further teaches wherein the first (9a) and second (9b) have a different amount of poles, respectively ([0036]).
Therefore further in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]), and since 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).
In claim 18, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 17; furthermore Miyake teaches wherein p is 48 and n is 36 ([0364]).
Miyake does not teach a number of the first magnets with four magnetic poles is 2, and a number of the second magnets with five magnetic poles is 8.
However Maekawa further teaches wherein the first (9a) and second (9b) have a different amount of poles, respectively within the framework that p is 48 and n is 36 ([0036]).
Therefore further in view of Maekawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a pole structure which reduces torque ripple and cogging torque (Maekawa; [0013]), and since 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).
In claim 19, Miyake as modified teaches the machine of claim 17; furthermore Miyake teaches wherein the motor (12) has a slot combination such that a value of a magnetic pole pitch (β) is 2N (where β=p/|p-n| and N is a natural number).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, and 20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seong et al. (US 2025/0392178) teaches a motor including a stator and a rotor.
Lee et al. (US 2010/0156231) teaches a slim type stator that is used to make a BLDC (Brushless Direct-Current) motor having a stator of a division core structure and a double rotor for use in a drum-washing machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5pm.
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 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.
RASHAD H. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/RASHAD H JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights