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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe (US 2021/0066979 A1).
RE claim 1, Yabe teaches an electric motor 1 (Figs.1-5) comprising: a stator 3 including a stator core 31 and a coil 32 provided on the stator core 31; and a rotor 2 disposed inside the stator 3 and including a rotor core 20 and a permanent magnet 220 (¶ 35), the rotor core 20 including a magnet insertion hole 202, the permanent magnet 220 being disposed in the magnet insertion hole 202, wherein an end 31a of the stator core 31 on a first side in an axial direction (Z) is located away from (end 21a) the rotor core 20 to the first side (Fig.5),
Ls is a length of the stator core in the axial direction, Lb (D1) is a distance in the axial direction between the end 31a of the stator core 31 on the first side and an end 21a of the rotor core 20 on the first side (upper side, see Fig.5), Lm is a length of the permanent magnet 220 in the axial direction, and La is a distance in the axial direction from the end 21a of the rotor core 20 on the first side to a center of the permanent magnet 220 in the axial direction (Z) (Fig.5).
Yabe does not teach the electric motor satisfies Ls/2 > Lb + Lm/2 and Ls/2 < Lb + La,
However, Yabe suggests that the distance (D1) between between the end 31a of the stator core 31 on the first side and an end 21a of the rotor core 20 on the first side is as well as distance (D2) of permanent magnet with respect to the rotor core are a result effective variables whose value can be adjusted such that the magnetic force of the permanent magnets can be efficiently used, and the magnetic force of the rotor can thus be strengthened (¶ 82).
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 Yabe by having the electric motor satisfies Ls/2 > Lb + Lm/2 and Ls/2 < Lb + La, as suggested by Yabe, 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).
RE claim 2/1, Yabe teaches the rotor includes a non-magnetic material 275 (the portion 275 is part of end plates 27 which is made of non-magnetic material, see ¶ 60), the non-magnetic material 275 (e.g.: 27a) is disposed on the first side in the axial direction with respect to the permanent magnet 220 (Fig.9) in the magnet insertion hole, a length (D1) in the axial direction between an end of the permanent magnet 220 on the first side and the end of the rotor core 20 on the first side is greater than or equal to Lt1, where Lt1 is a length of the non-magnetic material 275 in the axial direction (see Figs.1 and 9 for D1 is the distance between magnet and the axial end of core 20, which is also the axial length of portion 275).
Yabe does not teach the electric motor satisfies Ls/2 < Lb + La1, where Lm/2 + Lt1 = La1.
However, as previously discussed, suggests that the distance (D1) between between the end 31a of the stator core 31 on the first side and an end 21a of the rotor core 20 on the first side is as well as distance (D2) of permanent magnet with respect to the rotor core are a result effective variables whose value can be adjusted such that the magnetic force of the permanent magnets can be efficiently used, and the magnetic force of the rotor can thus be strengthened (¶ 82).
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 Yabe by having the electric motor satisfies Ls/2 < Lb + La1, where Lm/2 + Lt1 = La1, as suggested by Yabe, 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).
RE claim 3/1, Yabe teaches the rotor includes an end plate 27 (27a, 27b) provided at the end of the rotor core 20 on the first side (Figs.5, 9), the end plate 27 includes a protruding portion 275 protruding in the magnet insertion hole toward the second side that is opposite the first side in the axial direction (Fig.9), a length (D1) in the axial direction between an end of the permanent magnet 220 on the first side and the end of the rotor core 20 on the first side is greater than or equal to Lt2, where Lt2 is a length of the protruding portion 275 in the axial direction (see Fig.9).
Yabe does not teach the electric motor satisfies Ls/2<Lb + La2, where Lm/2 + Lt2 = La2.
However, as previously discussed, Yabe suggests that the distance (D1) between between the end 31a of the stator core 31 on the first side and an end 21a of the rotor core 20 on the first side is as well as distance (D2) of permanent magnet with respect to the rotor core are a result effective variables whose value can be adjusted such that the magnetic force of the permanent magnets can be efficiently used, and the magnetic force of the rotor can thus be strengthened (¶ 82).
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 Yabe by having the electric motor satisfies Ls/2<Lb + La2, where Lm/2 + Lt2 = La2, as suggested by Yabe, 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).
RE claim 8/1, Yabe has been discussed above. Yabe further teaches a compressor 6 comprising: a sealed container 61 (Fig.14 and ¶ 107); a compression device 62 disposed in the sealed container 61; and the electric motor 60 according to claim 1 to drive the compression device (Fig.14).
RE claim 9/8, Yabe has been discussed above. Yabe further teaches an air conditioner 50 (Fig.15) comprising: the compressor according to claim 8; and a heat exchanger (not shown, see ¶ 127).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (JP 2001037119 A, the machine translation of which has been provided).
RE claim 4/1, Yabe has been discussed above. Yabe does not teach:
the first side of the magnet insertion hole is covered by a part of the rotor core,
the electric motor satisfies Ls/2 < Lb + La3, where Lt3 is a length in the axial direction between a surface, which faces the permanent magnet, of the part of the rotor core and the end of the rotor core on the first side and Lm/2 + Lt3 = La3.
RE (i) above, Sasaki teaches the first side of the magnet insertion hole 3 (Figs.1, 4, 6) is covered by a part of the rotor core 2 such that the permanent magnet 4 can be positioned in the axial direction only by the rotor core 2 without using a holder. Cost can be reduced (see translation paragraph 9).
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 Yabe by having the first side of the magnet insertion hole is covered by a part of the rotor core, as taught by Sasaki, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, as previously discussed, Yabe suggests that the distance (D1) between between the end 31a of the stator core 31 on the first side and an end 21a of the rotor core 20 on the first side is as well as distance (D2) of permanent magnet with respect to the rotor core are a result effective variables whose value can be adjusted such that the magnetic force of the permanent magnets can be efficiently used, and the magnetic force of the rotor can thus be strengthened (¶ 82).
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 Yabe by having the electric motor satisfies Ls/2 < Lb + La3, where Lt3 is a length in the axial direction between a surface, which faces the permanent magnet, of the part of the rotor core and the end of the rotor core on the first side and Lm/2 + Lt3 = La3, as suggested by Yabe, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 5/4, as discussed above, Sasaki teaches a part of the magnet insertion hole 3 (Figs.1, 4) on the first side is covered by the part of the rotor core 2, and the other part of the magnet insertion hole on the first side is not covered by the rotor core 2.
RE claim 6/4, as discussed above, Sasaki teaches a part of the magnet insertion hole on the first side and on an end side in a radial direction is covered by the part of the rotor core 2 (Figs.1, 4), and the other part of the magnet insertion hole on the first side is not covered by the rotor core 2 (Figs.1, 4).
RE claim 7/6, as discussed above, Sasaki teaches the part of the rotor core is a projection 9 projecting in the radial direction of the rotor core 2, the projection 9 covers the part of the magnet insertion hole on the first side, and the permanent magnet is pressed and supported by the projection 9 (Fig.1, 6).
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