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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 16 recites wherein the gap between the rotor body and the magnetic flux capture member is wider than the gap between the rotor and the stator core. However, the only mention of these gaps is in paragraph [0079] of the specification as filed wherein the opposite arrangement is discussed, wherein the gap between the rotor and the stator core (E1) is wider than the gap between the rotor body and the magnetic flux capture member (E2).
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14 line 1, “claim 13” would be clearer if written as --claim 1-- since the limitations of claim 13 were added to claim 1 and claim 13 was cancelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 10,148,140 to Suzuki in view of European Patent Publication 2503154(A2) to Asanishi.
Referring to claim 1, Suzuki teaches an electric motor comprising:
a stator (13); and a rotor body (14) disposed inside the stator (13); a rotation shaft (18) attached to the rotor body (14); a first bearing (17) that supports a load side of the rotation shaft (18); and a second bearing (16) that supports an anti-load side of the rotation shaft (18) (Fig. 1; col. 2 lines 24-29 and 50-51),
wherein the stator (13) includes: a stator core (31) including a plurality of teeth (24); a plurality of magnetic flux capture members (44) (Figures 1-9; col. 3 lines 5-8 and col. 3 line 53 - col. 5 line 22); and
wherein the magnetic flux capture members (44), which are adjacent in a circumferential direction of the stator core (31), of the plurality of magnetic flux capture members (44) are disposed in the circumferential direction with a first gap (between adjacent members 44 at their axial tip remote from 42) in between (Figures 1-9; col. 3 line 53 - col. 5 line 22); and
a distance between the first bearing (17) and the second bearing (16) in the axial direction is greater than or equal to a length of the rotor body (14) in the axial direction (Fig. 1; col. 2 lines 24-29 and 50-51).
Suzuki teaches the use of a resin insulating material (47) formed along the walls of the slots (S) (col. 7 lines 9-17), but is silent as to the use of a resin to fix the magnetic flux capture members to end surfaces of the teeth. Asanishi teaches a motor comprising:
a resin (16) to fix magnetic flux capture members (25) to end surfaces, in an axial direction of a stator core (23), of teeth (21) respectively, and a first gap (between each 25) is filled with the resin (16) (Figures 1-6; paragraphs [0026]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the motor taught by Suzuki with the resin taught by Asanishi in order to reinforce and protect the motor (Asanishi paragraphs [[0026]-[0028]).
Referring to claim 2, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Suzuki further teaches wherein:
the first gap (between adjacent members 44 at their axial tip remote from 42) is greater than or equal to a second gap that is a gap between the teeth (24), which is adjacent in the circumferential direction, of the plurality of teeth (24) (Figures 1-9; col. 3 line 53 - col. 5 line 22, wherein because of their trapezoidal shape, members 44 are further apart than the teeth 24 connected at the base of the trapezoid).
Referring to claim 3, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Suzuki further teaches wherein:
a width (at their axial tip remote from 42) in the circumferential direction of each of the magnetic flux capture members (44) of the plurality of magnetic flux capture members (44) is narrower than a width in the circumferential direction of each of the teeth of the plurality of teeth (24) (Figures 1-9; col. 3 line 53 - col. 5 line 22, wherein because of their trapezoidal shape, members 44 are further apart than the teeth 24 connected at the base of the trapezoid).
Referring to claim 5, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Suzuki further teaches wherein:
a first thickness that is a thickness, in a radial direction of the stator core (31), of the magnetic flux capture member (44) is thinner than a second thickness that is a thickness of the tooth (24) in the radial direction (Figures 1-9; col. 2 lines 24-29 and 50-51 and col. 3 line 53 - col. 5 line 22).
Referring to claim 6, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 5, as detailed above, but Suzuki is silent as to the use of a resin to fix the magnetic flux capture members to end surfaces of the teeth. Asanishi further teaches wherein:
a third thickness that is a thickness of the resin (16) in the radial direction is thicker than a first thickness, that is a thickness, in a radial direction of the stator core (23), of the magnetic flux capture member (25) (Figures 1-6; paragraphs [0026]-[0033]).
Referring to claim 7, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Suzuki is silent as to the use of a resin to fix the magnetic flux capture members to end surfaces of the teeth. Asanishi further teaches wherein:
the resin (16) surrounds the plurality of magnetic flux capture members (25) so as to fix the magnetic flux capture members (25) to end surfaces in the axial direction of the plurality of teeth (21) (Figures 1-6; paragraphs [0026]-[0033]).
Referring to claim 8, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Suzuki further teaches wherein:
the magnetic flux capture members (44) are disposed on end surfaces in the axial direction of the teeth (24) (Figures 1-9; col. 3 line 53 - col. 5 line 22).
Suzuki is silent as to the use of a resin to fix the magnetic flux capture members to end surfaces of the teeth. Asanishi further teaches wherein:
the magnetic flux capture members (25) are disposed on end surfaces in the axial direction of the teeth (21) with the resin (16) in between (Figures 1-6; paragraphs [0026]-[0033]).
Referring to claim 11, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Suzuki further teaches wherein:
the stator (13) includes a winding (22) wound around the stator core (21), wherein a resin includes an insulator (47) that insulates the winding (22) from the stator core (21) (Figures 1-9; col. 3 lines 5-8, and col. 7 lines 9-43).
Suzuki is silent as to the use of a resin to fix the magnetic flux capture members to end surfaces of the teeth. Asanishi further teaches comprising:
a mold resin (16) that covers a winding (18) (Figures 1-6; paragraphs [0026]-[0033]).
Referring to claim 14, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Suzuki further teaches wherein:
a first length that is a length of the stator core (31) in the axial direction is shorter than a second length that is a length of the rotor body (14) in the axial direction (Fig. 1; col. 2 lines 24-29 and 50-51).
Referring to claim 16, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but are silent as to the relative sizes of the first and second claimed air gaps. However, the Applicant has not provided any reason why the recited relationship of air gaps (E2>E1 using the nomenclature in paragraph [0079] of the Applicant’s specification) is critical to the claimed invention, and therefore it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the motor such that a first air gap that is a gap between the rotor body and the magnetic flux capture member is wider than a second air gap that is a gap between the rotor body and the stator core, as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that such an air gap relationship solves any stated problems or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different relationship, such as the one disclosed in paragraph [0079] of the Applicant’s specification.
Referring to claim 17, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above, but Suzuki is silent as to the use of a resin to fix the magnetic flux capture members to end surfaces of the teeth. Asanishi further teaches wherein:
the resin (16) covers a surface, which faces a rotor body (14), of the magnetic flux capture member (25) (Figures 1-12; paragraphs [0026]-[0033]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 10,148,140 to Suzuki in view of European Patent Publication 2503154(A2) to Asanishi and U. S. Patent 5,859,486 to Nakahara.
Referring to claim 4, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach magnetic flux capture members being relatively shifted. Nakahara teaches a motor wherein:
a first center position that is a position of a center of a magnetic flux capture member (30) in the circumferential direction is shifted from a second center position that is a position of a center of a tooth in the circumferential direction (Figures 14-19; col. 22 lines 20-39).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the motor taught by Suzuki with the magnetic flux capture members being relatively shifted taught by Nakahara in order to “reduce the unevenness of the rotation resulting from cogging torque” (Nakahara col. 22 lines 20-39).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,148,140 to Suzuki in view of European Patent Publication 2503154(A2) to Asanishi and U. S. Patent Publication 2018/0248419 to Nigo.
Referring to claim 9, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach a magnetic flux capture member with a radial protrusion. Nigo teaches a motor wherein:
a magnetic flux capture member (24) includes a protruding portion (240, 241, 243) provided on a surface that faces outward in a radial direction of the stator core (21) (Figures 1-10; paragraphs [0030], [0031], [0039] and [0049]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the motor taught by Suzuki with the magnetic flux capture member protruding portion taught by Nigo in order to provide a smother surface (see Nigo Fig. 3) for the coil to be wound around, thereby reducing the risk of introducing stress in the winding wires from sharp corners.
Referring to claim 10, Suzuki, Asanishi and Nigo teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 9, as detailed above, but Suzuki and Asanishi do not teach a magnetic flux capture member with a radial protrusion. Nigo further teaches a motor wherein:
the protruding portion (240, 241, 243) protrudes outward in the radial direction from the surface, which faces outward in the radial direction, of the magnetic flux capture member (24) (Figures 1-10; paragraphs [0030], [0031], [0039] and [0049]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art that in combination with the resin of Asanishi that is already part of this combination, as detailed above, the resin (16) of Asanishi that surrounds the stator would necessarily form a recess (necessary to allow space for the protrusion) provided in a surface that faces inward in the radial direction, and the protruding portion, as taught by Nigo, is then fitted into the recess.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 10,148,140 to Suzuki in view of European Patent Publication 2503154(A2) to Asanishi and U. S. Patent Publication 2017/0018983 to Labbe.
Referring to claim 12, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but are silent as to the material of the winding. Labbe teaches a motor wherein:
a winding (4) is an aluminum wire (paragraphs [0007] and [0009], and claim 1).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the motor taught by Suzuki with the aluminum winding wire taught by Labbe in order to reduce the cost of material (Labbe paragraph [0009]) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,148,140 to Suzuki in view of European Patent Publication 2503154(A2) to Asanishi and U. S. Patent Publication 2012/0237373 to Li.
Referring to claim 18, Suzuki and Asanishi teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Suzuki is silent as to what is driven by the motor (col. 10 lines 50-54) and Asanishi does not teach a blower. Li teaches a blower comprising:
an electric motor (50); and an impeller (12) driven by the electric motor (50) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0029]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use the motor taught by Suzuki with the impeller taught by Li in order to use the motor for a hand dryer, a vacuum cleaner, fan or air pump (Li paragraph [0003] and [0005]).
Referring to claim 19, Suzuki, Asanishi and Li teach a motor comprising all the limitations of claim 18, as detailed above, but Suzuki is silent as to what is driven by the motor (col. 10 lines 50-54) and Asanishi does not teach a blower. Li further teaches a motor wherein:
an outer diameter of the impeller (12) is larger than an outer diameter of a stator core (54) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0029]-[0037]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bamba, Takeuchi, Swada, Glass, Yoshikawa, Gomyo, and Abe teach similar motors and blowers as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights