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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over ASAI(US20130328433A1) in view of ANDERSON(US4393320A).
Regarding claim 1, Regarding claim 1, Asai teaches a rotor (10) comprising an outer rotor part (para. [0031]), wherein bonded-magnet formed bodies (14) are secured to an outside periphery, and an inner rotor part (core 12) provided inside the outer rotor part. Asai further teaches that the outer rotor part is a bonded magnet (para. [0031]). Asai inherently teaches that D2 = D3, since the bonded-magnet formed bodies are press-fit onto the rotor core, which requires the inner diameter of the bonded magnet to correspond to the outer diameter of the rotor core (see Fig. 1).
Asai does not explicitly disclose a relative permittivity of the bonded magnet being larger than 40 and equal to or smaller than 200. However, Asai discloses an outer rotor part formed of a bonded magnet comprising magnetic powder and polymer resin. The dielectric properties of bonded magnets, including relative permittivity, are inherent material characteristics dependent on composition. Selecting a bonded magnet having a relative permittivity within the claimed range represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable. As held in In re Aller, discovering optimum ranges through routine experimentation is ordinarily obvious, and as further supported by In re Peterson, selection of a value within a known range is prima facie obvious absent evidence of criticality.
Asai does not teach wherein the inner rotor part is an insulating material, a relative permittivity of the insulating material being equal to or smaller than 10, and the dimensional relationship 0.15 ≤ (D3 − D4)/(D1 − D2).
However, Anderson teaches wherein the inner rotor part (10) is an insulating material (22), wherein the filler material is a cured epoxy resin that is electrically non-conductive.
While Anderson does not explicitly disclose a relative permittivity value for the insulating material, the dielectric properties of insulating polymer materials, including relative permittivity, are inherent material characteristics dependent on composition. Epoxy resins are well-known insulating materials having low relative permittivity. Selecting an insulating material having a relative permittivity equal to or smaller than 10 represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable, which would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with In re Aller and In re Peterson.
With respect to the dimensional relationship 0.15 ≤ (D3 − D4)/(D1 − D2), the prior art teaches selection of rotor dimensions to achieve desired structural integrity and performance characteristics. The claimed dimensional relationship represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable, which would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Asai and Anderson.
Anderson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asai wherein the inner rotor part is an insulating material, a relative permittivity of the insulating material being equal to or smaller than 10, and the dimensional relationship 0.15 ≤ (D3 − D4)/(D1 − D2), as taught by Anderson. One would be motivated to do this in order to reduce eddy currents and electrical losses, which increases efficiency.
Regarding claim 6/1, Asai in view of Anderson teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
Asai further teaches an electric motor comprising a stator and a rotor disposed inside the stator(Para[0018]). Since the rotor of claim 6 is the same rotor as recited in claim 1, and claim 1 is unpatentable for the reasons set forth above, it would have been obvious to incorporate the rotor into a conventional electric motor including a stator as taught by Asai. Claim 6 therefore does not add any patentably distinct features beyond those already found obvious.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over ASAI(US20130328433A1) in view of ANDERSON(US4393320A) and further in view of OH(US20070063612A1).
Regarding claim 2/1, Asai in view of Anderson teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
The combination is silent wherein the insulating material is a polyamide resin or polybutylene terephthalate.
However, Oh teaches a rotor wherein the insulating material(220) is a polyamide resin or polybutylene terephthalate(Para[0011-0013], Polyamide insulating material).
OH is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai in view of Anderson because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asa in view of Anderson wherein the insulating material is a polyamide resin or polybutylene terephthalate, as taught by OH. One would be motivated to do this in order to increase electric isolation on the inner rotor part to reduce leakage current and improving electrical reliability.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over ASAI(US20130328433A1) in view of ANDERSON(US4393320A) and further in view of LEE(US5298826A).
Regarding claim 3/1, Asai in view of Anderson teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
Asai further teaches wherein the bonded magnet(14) contains magnetic powder and resin(Para[0031]).
Combination is silent wherein the magnetic powder is ferrite.
However, Lee teaches wherein the magnetic powder is ferrite(Col. 3, Lines 45-60).
Lee is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai in view of Anderson because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asa in view of Anderson wherein the magnetic powder is ferrite, as taught by Lee. One would be motivated to do this because ferrite powders are significantly cheaper and chemically stable making them durable and reliable at a reduced cost.
Regarding claim 4/3, Asai in view of Anderson and Lee teaches the rotor according to claim 3.
Asai further teaches wherein the resin in the bonded magnet is polyamide resin(Para[0039]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over ASAI(US20130328433A1) in view of ANDERSON(US4393320A) and further in view of LEE(US5298826A) and FUJII(JPH0645125A).
Regarding claim 5/3, Asai in view of Anderson and Lee teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
Combination is silent wherein the resin in the bonded magnet is polyphenylene sulfide.
However, Fujii teaches wherein the resin in the bonded magnet is polyphenylene sulfide (Para[0001-0006], in translation of JPH0645125A).
Fujii is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai in view of Anderson and Lee because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asa in view of Anderson and Lee wherein the resin in the bonded magnet is polyphenylene sulfide, as taught by Fujii. One would be motivated to do this because pps resin improves reliability of the bonded magnet in high speed applications which increase motor efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over ASAI(US20130328433A1) in view of ANDERSON(US4393320A) and further in view of CHEN(US20030194335A1).
Regarding claim 7/6, Asai in view of Anderson teaches the rotor according to claim 6.
Asai further teaches an electric motor(Para[0018]), a conductive housing, wherein the rotor and the stator are disposed in the conductive housing (Fig. 3).
The combination does not explicitly teach comprising: a conductive shaft fixed inside the inner rotor part; a bearing rotatably supporting the conductive shaft; the outer peripheral surface of the stator is in contact with the conductive housing, the bearing includes an inner ring and an outer ring and the outer ring is in contact with the conductive housing.
However, Chen teaches an electric motor assembly(10) comprising: a conductive shaft(34) fixed inside the inner rotor part(20); a bearing(82,106) rotatably supporting the conductive shaft(34); the outer peripheral surface of the stator(18) is in contact with the conductive housing(16), the bearing(82,106) includes an inner ring(82) and an outer ring, and the outer ring(78) is in contact with the conductive housing(16)
Chen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai in view of Anderson because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asa in view of Anderson wherein comprising: a conductive shaft fixed inside the inner rotor part; a bearing rotatably supporting the conductive shaft; the outer peripheral surface of the stator is in contact with the conductive housing, the bearing includes an inner ring and an outer ring and the outer ring is in contact with the conductive housing, as taught by Chen. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do this modification, since the structure is a conventional motor configuration, which represents a predictable use of know motor components according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 8/6, Asai in view of Anderson teaches the electric motor according to claim 6.
Asai in view of Anderson is silent a fan comprising a blade; and the electric motor rotating the blade.
However, Chen teaches a fan(2) comprising a blade(9); and the electric motor(10) rotating the blade.
Chen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai in view of Anderson because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asa in view of Anderson wherein comprising: a fan comprising a blade; and the electric motor rotating the blade, as taught by Chen. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the electric motor of Asai in view of Anderson, since electric motors are routinely employed to drive fan blades to move air. Applying a known electric motor to a fan represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would not alter the operation of the motor.
Regarding claim 9/6, Asai in view of Anderson teaches the electric motor according to claim 6.
Asai in view of Anderson is silent a ventilator comprising a blade; and the electric motor rotating the blade.
However, Chen teaches a fan(2) comprising a blade(9); and the electric motor(10) rotating the blade(Ventilator is simply a fan used for air movement or ventilation).
Chen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai in view of Anderson because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asa in view of Anderson wherein comprising: a ventilator comprising a blade; and the electric motor rotating the blade, as taught by Chen. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the electric motor of Asai in view of Anderson, since electric motors are routinely employed to drive ventilator blades to move air. Applying a known electric motor to a ventilator represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would not alter the operation of the motor.
Regarding claim 10/6, Asai in view of Anderson teaches the electric motor according to claim 6.
Asai in view of Anderson is silent an air conditioner comprising: an indoor unit; and an outdoor unit to be connected to the indoor unit, wherein the indoor unit, the outdoor unit, or each of the indoor unit and the outdoor unit includes the electric motor
However, Chen teaches an air-moving device(2) including an electric motor(10) disposed within a housing(12) and configured to drive a fan(9) for circulating air (see Fig. 1)(Chen discloses a motor-driven fan assembly suitable for use in air-handling applications, wherein the electric motor rotates a fan to move air through the device. Such motor-driven fan assemblies are the same type of electric motors conventionally employed in air-conditioning systems, including indoor and outdoor units, to circulate air and facilitate heat exchange. Accordingly, Chen teaches an electric motor configured for use in an air-conditioning environment as recited in claim 10.)
Chen is analogous to the claimed invention of Asai in view of Anderson because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electric motor of Asai in view of Anderson, as further exemplified by Chen, into an air conditioner, since air-conditioning systems conventionally include electric motors to drive fans in indoor and outdoor units for air circulation and heat exchange. Applying a known electric motor in an air-conditioning system represents a predictable use of prior-art motor technology according to its established function and would not alter the operation of the motor, consistent with KSR v. Teleflex.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over ASAI(US20130328433A1) in view of ANDERSON(US4393320A) and further in view of OH(US20070063612A1) and LEE(US5298826A).
Regarding claim 11/2, Asai in view of Anderson and OH teaches the rotor according to claim 2.
Asai further teaches wherein the bonded magnet(14) contains magnetic powder and resin(Para[0031]).
Combination is silent wherein the magnetic powder is ferrite.
However, Lee teaches wherein the magnetic powder is ferrite(Col. 3, Lines 45-60).
Lee is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai in view of Anderson and OH because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asa in view of Anderson and OH wherein the magnetic powder is ferrite, as taught by Lee. One would be motivated to do this because ferrite powders are significantly cheaper and chemically stable making them durable and reliable at a reduced cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
KITAKON(JP2018201295A) is an application that teaches a rotor with an outer bonded magnet and an inner resin core that are integrally molded in a concentric arrangement.
THOMPSON(US6765319B1) is an application that teaches a motor rotor using plastic-bonded magnet molded onto a core, focusing on rotor construction and integration.
SCHWARZ(US6198372B1) is an application that teaches a plastic-bonded ring magnet formed on a ring shaped nonmetallic body, which established inner/outer rotor parts with concentric diameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834