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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on February 29, 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, and 10-23 are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “he” in the beginning of claim 11 is not grammatically accurate. It is believed by the examiner to be a misspelling of the word “The”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-15 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites an "electric motor" comprising a rotor of claim 1, but does not recite any additional limitations of said rotor. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites a "blower" comprising an electric motor of claim 10, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric blower. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites a "ventilator" comprising an electric motor of claim 10, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric motor. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites an "electric machine" comprising an electric motor of claim 10, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric motor. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites an "air conditioner" comprising an electric motor of claim 10, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric motor. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 recites an "electric motor" comprising a rotor of claim 1, but does not recite any additional limitations of said rotor. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 recites a "blower" comprising an electric motor of claim 10, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric blower. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 recites a "ventilator" comprising an electric motor of claim 10, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric motor. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 22 recites an "electric machine" comprising an electric motor of claim 10, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric motor. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 recites an "air conditioner" comprising an electric motor of claim 10, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric motor. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected for being dependent from claims 10 and 18 respectfully.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 16-19, and 22is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII (JP 11275786 A) in view of WATANABE (WO 2013042282 A1).
In regards to claim 1, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches:
A rotor (Fig 1; 2A) comprising:
an outer rotor (Fig 1; 3) formed of a first bonded magnet, the first bonded magnet (Fig 1; 32)being a complex containing first resin and magnetic powder[0012-0014]
an inner rotor(Fig 1; 4); and
a plurality of ribs (Fig 1; 6A)extending in a radial direction and connecting the outer rotor (Fig 1; 3)and the inner rotor(Fig 1; 4);
a shaft supporting the inner rotor(Fig 1; 1);
wherein the inner rotor(Fig 1; 4) and the plurality of ribs (Fig 1; 6A)are formed of a second bonded magnet[0012-0014], and
where L1 is a length in an axial direction of the outer rotor(Fig 1; 3), L2 is a length in the axial direction of the rib(Fig 1; 6A), D is a diameter of the inner rotor(Fig 1; 4), N is the number of the ribs(Fig 1; 6A), a is a width, in a circumferential direction of the rotor(Fig 1; 2A), of each of the ribs(Fig 1; 6A), and b is a length in the radial direction of the rib(Fig 1; 6A).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ISHII does not teach:
relative permittivity of the first bonded magnet being greater than 40 and equal to or less than 200
a first bearing supporting an end portion of the shaft on a load side; and
a second bearing supporting an end portion of the shaft on an anti-load side,
the rotor satisfies b x L1/(a x N x L2)> 0.3 and a x N/(D x ) < 0.8.
WATANABE teaches:
the first bonded magnet (Fig 1; 32)being a complex containing first resin and magnetic powder [page 4; ln 25-28], relative permittivity of the first bonded magnet being greater than 40 and equal to or less than 200(the dielectric constant range includes 40 [page 4; ln 25-28]. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ416.);
a first bearing (Fig 1; 15a) supporting an end portion of the shaft (Fig 1; 16)on a load side; and
a second bearing (Fig 1; 15b) supporting an end portion of the shaft (Fig 1; 16)on an anti-load side,
the rotor satisfies b x L1/(a x N x L2)> 0.3 and a x N/(D x ) < 0.8(WATANABE’s teaches that dimensions of the rotor can be optimized in order to adjust the electrostatic capacity [page 4; ln 34-41]).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 ISHII by using the first bonded magnet taught by WATANABE in order have a relative permittivity of 40, thus the state of waveform collapse of the axial voltage is not completely corrugated, and in actual use, generation of electrolytic corrosion is prevented [WATANABE page 4; ln 25-28].
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ416.
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 ISHII by adding the first and second bearings taught by WATANABE in order to reduced axial voltage and suppress the occurrence of the bearing electrochemical corrosion [WATANABE page 4; ln 43-45].
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 ISHII by modifying the rotor dimensions taught by WATANABE in order to adjust the electrostatic capacity to an optimal value [WATANABE page 4; ln 34-41].
Additionally, ISHII and WATANABE discloses the claimed invention except for exact rotor dimensions. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the rotor dimensions to fit the limitation, b x L1/(a x N x L2)> 0.3 and a x N/(D x ) < 0.8, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 3, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the rotor according to claim 1:
wherein the second bonded magnet(Fig 1; 4) is the same material as the first bonded magnet(Fig 1; 3).
In regards to claim 5, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches:
A rotor (Fig 1; 2A) comprising:
an outer rotor (Fig 1; 3) formed of a first bonded magnet, the first bonded magnet (Fig 1; 32)being a complex containing first resin and magnetic powder[0012-0014]
an inner rotor(Fig 1; 4); and
a plurality of ribs (Fig 1; 6A)extending in a radial direction and connecting the outer rotor (Fig 1; 3)and the inner rotor(Fig 1; 4);
a shaft supporting the inner rotor(Fig 1; 1);
wherein the inner rotor (Fig 1; 4)and the plurality of ribs (Fig 1; 6A)are formed of a second resin of the first bonded magnet forming the outer rotor(Fig 1; 3),
where L1 is a length in an axial direction of the outer rotor(Fig 1; 3), L2 is a length in the axial direction of the rib(Fig 1; 6A), D is a diameter of the inner rotor(Fig 1; 4), N is the number of the ribs(Fig 1; 6A), a is a width, in a circumferential direction of the rotor(Fig 1; 2A), of each of the ribs(Fig 1; 6A), and b is a length in the radial direction of the rib(Fig 1; 6A).
ISHII does not teach:
relative permittivity of the first bonded magnet being greater than 40 and equal to or less than 200
a first bearing supporting an end portion of the shaft on a load side; and
a second bearing supporting an end portion of the shaft on an anti-load side,
the rotor satisfies b x L1/(a x N x L2)> 0.3 and a x N/(D x ) < 1.0.
WATANABE teaches:
the first bonded magnet (Fig 1; 32)being a complex containing first resin and magnetic powder [page 4; ln 25-28], relative permittivity of the first bonded magnet being greater than 40 and equal to or less than 200(the dielectric constant range includes 40 [page 4; ln 25-28]. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ416.);
a first bearing (Fig 1; 15a) supporting an end portion of the shaft (Fig 1; 16)on a load side; and
a second bearing (Fig 1; 15b) supporting an end portion of the shaft (Fig 1; 16)on an anti-load side,
the rotor satisfies b x L1/(a x N x L2)> 0.3 and a x N/(D x ) < 1.0(WATANABE’s teaches that dimensions of the rotor can be optimized in order to adjust the electrostatic capacity [page 4; ln 34-41]).
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 ISHII by using the first bonded magnet taught by WATANABE in order have a relative permittivity of 40, thus the state of waveform collapse of the axial voltage is not completely corrugated, and in actual use, generation of electrolytic corrosion is prevented [WATANABE page 4; ln 25-28].
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ416.
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 ISHII by adding the first and second bearings taught by WATANABE in order to reduced axial voltage and suppress the occurrence of the bearing electrochemical corrosion [WATANABE page 4; ln 43-45].
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 ISHII by modifying the rotor dimensions taught by WATANABE in order to adjust the electrostatic capacity to an optimal value [WATANABE page 4; ln 34-41].
Additionally, ISHII and WATANABE discloses the claimed invention except for exact rotor dimensions. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the rotor dimensions to fit the limitation, b x L1/(a x N x L2)> 0.3 and a x N/(D x ) < 1.0, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) .
Lastly, ISHII and WATANABE discloses the claimed invention except for a second resin having relative permittivity lower than relative permittivity of the first bonded magnet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a second resin with a lower relative permittivity than the first bonded magnet, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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.
In regards to claim 7, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
ISHII does not teach:
wherein the magnetic powder contains ferrite.
WATANABE teaches:
wherein the magnetic powder contains ferrite[page 3; ln 24-33].
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 ISHII by using the magnetic powder containing ferrite taught by WATANABE so that the maximum energy product of the resin magnet was in the desired range [WATANABE page 3; ln 24-33].
In regards to claim 8, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
ISHII does not teach:
wherein the first resin contains at least one of polyamide resin or polyphenylene sulfide resin.
WATANABE teaches:
wherein the first resin contains at least one of polyamide resin or polyphenylene sulfide resin[page 3; ln 24-33].
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 ISHII by using the polyamide resin taught by WATANABE so that the maximum energy product of the resin magnet was in the desired range [WATANABE page 3; ln 24-33].
In regards to claim 10, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
ISHII does not teach:
An electric motor comprising:
a stator; and
a housing that houses the rotor and the stator.
WATANABE teaches:
An electric motor [page 1; ln 12]comprising:
a stator(Fig 1; 10); and
a housing (Fig 1; 17/19) that houses the rotor (Fig 1; 30) and the stator(Fig 1; 10).
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 the rotor of ISHII by using the motor and stator taught by WATANABE in order to improving performance, reducing weight, reducing costs, and improving cooling efficiency. [ISHII 0004].
In regards to claim 11, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 10.
ISHII does not teach:
wherein the stator, a first outer ring of the first bearing, and a second outer ring of the second bearing are in electrical contact with the housing.
WATANABE teaches:
wherein the stator(Fig 1; 10), a first outer ring of the first bearing(Fig 1; 15a), and a second outer ring of the second bearing (Fig 1; 15b) are in electrical contact with the housing(Fig 1; 17/19)[page 2; ln 26-29].
In regards to claim 14, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 10.
ISHII does not teach:
An electrical machine.
WATANABE teaches:
An electrical machine [abstract]
In regards to claim 16, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the rotor according to claim 5.
ISHII does not teach:
wherein the magnetic powder contains ferrite.
WATANABE teaches:
wherein the magnetic powder contains ferrite[page 3; ln 24-33].
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 ISHII by using the magnetic powder containing ferrite taught by WATANABE so that the maximum energy product of the resin magnet was in the desired range [WATANABE page 3; ln 24-33].
In regards to claim 17, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the rotor according to claim 5.
ISHII does not teach:
wherein the first resin contains at least one of polyamide resin or polyphenylene sulfide resin.
WATANABE teaches:
wherein the first resin contains at least one of polyamide resin or polyphenylene sulfide resin[page 3; ln 24-33].
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 ISHII by using the polyamide resin taught by WATANABE so that the maximum energy product of the resin magnet was in the desired range [WATANABE page 3; ln 24-33].
In regards to claim 18, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the rotor according to claim 5.
ISHII does not teach:
An electric motor comprising:
a stator; and
a housing that houses the rotor and the stator.
WATANABE teaches:
An electric motor [page 1; ln 12]comprising:
a stator(Fig 1; 10); and
a housing (Fig 1; 17/19) that houses the rotor (Fig 1; 30) and the stator(Fig 1; 10).
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 the rotor of ISHII by using the motor and stator taught by WATANABE in order to improving performance, reducing weight, reducing costs, and improving cooling efficiency. [ISHII 0004].
In regards to claim 19, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 18.
ISHII does not teach:
wherein the stator, a first outer ring of the first bearing, and a second outer ring of the second bearing are in electrical contact with the housing.
WATANABE teaches:
wherein the stator(Fig 1; 10), a first outer ring of the first bearing(Fig 1; 15a), and a second outer ring of the second bearing (Fig 1; 15b) are in electrical contact with the housing(Fig 1; 17/19)[page 2; ln 26-29].
In regards to claim 22, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 18.
ISHII does not teach:
An electrical machine.
WATANABE teaches:
An electrical machine [abstract]
Claim(s) 12-13, 15, 20-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII (JP 11275786 A), in view of WATANABE (WO 2013042282 A1), in further view of TAKAHASHI (US 20200153298 A1).
In regards to claim 12, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 10.
Combination ISHII/WATANABE does not teach:
A blower comprising:
a blade to be driven by the electric motor.
TAKAHASHI teaches:
A blower (Fig 13; 504)comprising:
a blade (Fig 13; 506) to be driven by the electric motor(Fig 13; 1)[0116].
PNG
media_image3.png
381
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 the electric motor of ISHII and WATANABE by using the blower and blade taught by TAKAHASHI in order to blow air outdoors during cooling operation of an air conditioning apparatus [ISHII 0117].
In regards to claim 13, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 10.
Combination ISHII/WATANABE does not teach:
A ventilator
TAKAHASHI teaches:
A ventilator (Fig 13; 10)
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 the electric motor of ISHII and WATANABE by using the ventilator taught by TAKAHASHI in order to blow air outdoors during cooling operation of an air conditioning apparatus [ISHII 0117].
In regards to claim 15, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 10.
Combination ISHII/WATANABE does not teach:
An air conditioner comprising:
an indoor unit; and
an outdoor unit to be connected to the indoor unit,
wherein at least one of the indoor unit or the outdoor unit includes the electric motor.
TAKAHASHI teaches:
An air conditioner[0114] comprising:
an indoor unit(Fig 12; 502); and
an outdoor unit(Fig 12; 501) to be connected to the indoor unit(Fig 12; 502),
wherein at least one of the indoor unit (Fig 12; 502)or the outdoor unit (Fig 12; 501)includes the electric motor (Fig 13; 1)
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 the electric motor of ISHII and WATANABE by using the air conditioner units taught by TAKAHASHI in order to blow air outdoors during cooling operation of an air conditioning apparatus [ISHII 0117].
PNG
media_image4.png
472
333
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 20, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 18.
Combination ISHII/WATANABE does not teach:
A blower comprising:
a blade to be driven by the electric motor.
TAKAHASHI teaches:
A blower (Fig 13; 504)comprising:
a blade (Fig 13; 506) to be driven by the electric motor(Fig 13; 1)[0116].
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 the electric motor of ISHII and WATANABE by using the blower and blade taught by TAKAHASHI in order to blow air outdoors during cooling operation of an air conditioning apparatus [ISHII 0117].
In regards to claim 21, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 18.
Combination ISHII/WATANABE does not teach:
A ventilator
TAKAHASHI teaches:
A ventilator (Fig 13; 10)
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 the electric motor of ISHII and WATANABE by using the ventilator taught by TAKAHASHI in order to blow air outdoors during cooling operation of an air conditioning apparatus [ISHII 0117].
In regards to claim 23, ISHII, in view of WATANABE, teaches the electric motor according to claim 18.
Combination ISHII/WATANABE does not teach:
An air conditioner comprising:
an indoor unit; and
an outdoor unit to be connected to the indoor unit,
wherein at least one of the indoor unit or the outdoor unit includes the electric motor.
TAKAHASHI teaches:
An air conditioner[0114] comprising:
an indoor unit(Fig 12; 502); and
an outdoor unit(Fig 12; 501) to be connected to the indoor unit(Fig 12; 502),
wherein at least one of the indoor unit (Fig 12; 502)or the outdoor unit (Fig 12; 501)includes the electric motor (Fig 13; 1)
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 the electric motor of ISHII and WATANABE by using the air conditioner units taught by TAKAHASHI in order to blow air outdoors during cooling operation of an air conditioning apparatus [ISHII 0117].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 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, Oluseye 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.
/NICHOLAS LEE SETZER/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834