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 April 26, 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-15 are now pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 26, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: “stator tooth head (19)” in line 4 of the claim should read “stator tooth head”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the functional limitation “wherein the rotor bell is mountable in a stator of the outrunner motor so as to be rotatable about an axis of rotation and exhibits a tilting rigidity that is asymmetrical in relation to the axis of rotation” in lines 3-5. However, the claim does not recite a structure that performs this function, amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP 2173.05(g)
Claims 2-15 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the number of spokes corresponds to the next two smallest prime numbers in relation to the number of rotor pole pairs.” It is unclear how the number of spokes could correspond to two different numbers within the same structure. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “corresponds to one of the next two smallest prime numbers in relation to the number of rotor pole pairs”, consistent with the description in ¶ [0048] of the specification.
Additionally, claim 6 recites the limitation "the number of rotor pole pairs" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a number of rotor pole pairs”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the radially outer side" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a radially outer side”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the radially inner side" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a radially inner side”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a stator tooth head” in line 4 of the claim. It is unclear whether this “a stator tooth head” is the same limitation referred to in lines 2-3 of the claim as “a stator tooth head”, or a separate instance of “a stator tooth head”. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “a stator tooth head” of line 4 is being interpreted as “the stator tooth head”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the tangential slot gap" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stettinger et al. (DE 102017123085 A1, hereafter referred to as Stettinger).
Regarding Claim 1, Stettinger discloses (see Figures 1-3) a rotor (4, Page 5, ¶ 4) for an outrunner motor (1, Page 5, ¶ 4) comprising a rotor housing designed as a rotor bell (4, Page 5, ¶ 4) with rotor poles (23, Page 5, ¶ 4) situated therein, wherein the rotor bell (4, Page 5, ¶ 4) is mountable in a stator (3, Page 5, ¶ 4) of the outrunner motor (1, Page 5, ¶ 4) so as to be rotatable about an axis of rotation and exhibits a tilting rigidity that is asymmetrical in relation to the axis of rotation (6, 7, Page 6, ¶ 2), wherein the center of gravity of the rotor bell (4, Page 5, ¶ 4) is located on its axis of rotation (Abstract: “In order to create an optimal unbalance compensation with the lowest possible mass, it is proposed that the external rotor (4) for the purpose of balancing an unbalanced relative to a rotation axis (5) of the external rotor (4) arranged first counter mass (6) which integrally with the External rotor (4) is formed.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses (see Figure 4) that the rotor bell (4, Page 5, ¶ 4) has areas of at least one of different geometry and different materials.
PNG
media_image2.png
530
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses (see Figure 4 above) that an end face (27, Page 6, ¶ 4) of the rotor bell (4, Page 5, ¶ 4), which is formed perpendicular to the axis of rotation, is configured asymmetrically.
Regarding Claim 4/3/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses (see Figure 4 above) the end face (27, Page 6, ¶ 4) of the rotor bell (4, Page 5, ¶ 4) comprises at least one cutout (26, Page 6, ¶ 4) and spokes (28, Page 6, ¶ 4), wherein the spokes (28, Page 6, ¶ 4) have at least one of different materials, different thicknesses, different widths, and different angles between them.
Regarding Claim 5/4/3/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses (see Figure 3) that the spokes (28, Page 6, ¶ 4) are arranged asymmetrically around the axis of rotation such that they are each arranged between two rotor poles (23, Page 5, ¶ 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
514
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6/4/3/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses (see Figure 3 above) the number of spokes (28, Page 6, ¶ 4) is smaller than the number of rotor pole pairs formed by two rotor poles (23, Page 5, ¶ 4) in each case and wherein the number of spokes (28, Page 6, ¶ 4) corresponds to the next two smallest prime numbers in relation to the number of rotor pole pairs (23, Page 5, ¶ 4) (Figure 3 shows five rotor pole pairs and two spokes, the number of spokes falls in the next two smallest prime numbers below the number of rotor pole pairs.).
Regarding Claim 7/4/3/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses (see Figure 3) that the spokes (28, Page 6, ¶ 4) are arranged asymmetrically in relation to the axis of rotation and each enclose an angle that is as equal as possible.
PNG
media_image4.png
514
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses (see Figures 1-2) a ring-shaped damping element (7, Page 5, ¶ 4) is inserted into the rotor bell (4, Page 5, ¶ 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses (see Figures 1 and 3) an outrunner motor (1, Page 5, ¶ 4) with a motor shaft (14, Page 5, ¶ 5), a stator (3, Page 5, ¶ 4) with a plurality of stator teeth (2, Page 5, ¶ 4) and a rotor (4, Page 5, ¶ 4) surrounding the stator (3, Page 5, ¶ 4) according to claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, the drawings of Stettinger appear to suggest that the number of stator teeth (2, Page 5, ¶ 4) is smaller than the number of rotor poles (23, Page 5, ¶ 4) (Figure 3 appears to show a stator with 9 teeth, and a rotor with 10 poles).
PNG
media_image5.png
514
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stettinger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakada et al. (WO 2018092628 A1, hereafter referred to as Nakada).
Regarding Claim 8/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Stettinger does not explicitly disclose that the rotor poles are arcuate on the radially outer side and flat on the radially inner side.
However, Nakada, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figures 4-5) that the rotor poles (2, Page 3, ¶ 4) are arcuate on the radially outer side (19, Page 4, ¶ 11) and flat on the radially inner side (20, Page 4, ¶ 11).
PNG
media_image6.png
350
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
234
416
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor disclosed by Stettinger such that the rotor poles are arcuate on the radially outer side and flat on the radially inner side, as disclosed by Nakada, in order to prevent damage to the magnets in the event of impact to the outer wall of the rotor (Page 4, ¶ 12 – Page 5, ¶ 1: “Even if the permanent magnet 2 receives a strong impact due to the magnetic force, damage to the permanent magnet 2 can be suppressed.”)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stettinger as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Qi et al. (WO 2013170672 A1, hereafter referred to as Qi).
Regarding Claim 11/10/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses that each of the stator teeth (2, Page 5, ¶ 4) has a stator tooth head (Annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
514
468
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Stettinger does not explicitly disclose that a tangential distance between the rotor poles is greater than a tangential slot gap width between two stator tooth heads, wherein the ratio of the tangential slot gap width to the tangential distance between the rotor poles is between 0.5 and 0.85.
However, Qi, in the same field of technology, does disclose that a tangential distance (Sm, Page 2, ¶ 7) between the rotor poles (20, Page 6, ¶ 3) is greater than a tangential slot gap (Sc, Page 2, ¶ 7) width between two stator tooth heads (32, Page 7, ¶ 4), wherein the ratio of the tangential slot gap (Sc, Page 2, ¶ 7) width to the tangential distance (Sm, Page 2, ¶ 7) between the rotor poles (20, Page 6, ¶ 3) is between 0.5 and 0.85. (Page 8, ¶ 2: “In summary, the concentrated winding motor of the present invention uses the inter-mode magnetic steel to save the magnetic steel, and the size of the notch width Sc between the two teeth of the stator of the concentrated winding motor and the distance Sm between two adjacent magnetic steels are satisfied. Constraint relationship: Sm/Sc= (0.83 ~ 1.3)”)
PNG
media_image9.png
440
476
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
548
526
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor disclosed by Stettinger such that a tangential distance between the rotor poles is greater than a tangential slot gap width between two stator tooth heads, wherein the ratio of the tangential slot gap width to the tangential distance between the rotor poles is between 0.5 and 0.85, as disclosed by Qi, in order to prevent deviations in torque during operation (Page 8, ¶ 2: “The sinusoidality of the magnetic field of the concentrated winding motor is optimized to keep the torque constant.”).
Claim 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stettinger as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20160329790 A1, hereafter referred to as Li).
Regarding Claim 12/10/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses that each of the stator teeth (2, Page 5, ¶ 4) has a stator tooth head (Annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
514
468
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Stettinger does not explicitly disclose that the ratio of tangential slot gap width between two stator tooth heads to a tangential width of a stator tooth head is less than or equal to 0.25.
However, the drawings of Li, in the same field of technology, appear to suggest (see Figure 25) that the ratio of tangential slot gap (D, ¶ [0076]) width between two stator tooth heads (24, ¶ [0076]) to a tangential width of a stator tooth head (24, ¶ [0076]) is less than or equal to 0.25.
PNG
media_image11.png
462
448
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor disclosed by Stettinger such that the ratio of tangential slot gap width between two stator tooth heads to a tangential width of a stator tooth head is less than or equal to 0.25, as suggested by Li, in order reduce cogging torque (¶ [0003]: “For the single-phase outer-rotor motor, it has been desired to reduce the cogging torque of the motor and avoid the dead-point position when the rotor stops.”).
Regarding Claim 14/10/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses that each of the stator teeth (2, Page 5, ¶ 4) has a stator tooth head (Annotated Figure 3) and an air gap (Annotated Figure 3) is formed between the rotor (4, Page 5, ¶ 4) and the stator (3, Page 5, ¶ 4).
PNG
media_image12.png
514
468
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Stettinger does not disclose that the ratio between a width of the air gap and a tangential slot gap width between two stator tooth heads lies in a range of 0.25 to 0.5.
However, Li, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figure 25) that the ratio between a width of the air gap (Gmin/Gmax, ¶ [0076]) and a tangential slot gap (D, ¶ [0076]) width between two stator tooth heads (34, ¶ [0076]) lies in a range of 0.25 to 0.5. (¶ [0076]: “Preferably, a ratio of the maximum width Gmax to the minimum width Gmin of the gap is greater than 1.5, i.e. Gmax:Gmin>1.5. More preferably, Gmax:Gmin>2. Preferably, the width D of the slot opening 30 is not greater than five times of the minimum width Gmin of the gap 62, i.e. D<5 Gmin. Preferably, the width D of the slot opening 30 is equal to or greater than the minimum width Gmin of the gap 62, but less than or equal to three times of the minimum width Gmin of the gap 62, i.e. Gmin≦D≦3 Gmin.”).
PNG
media_image11.png
462
448
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor disclosed by Stettinger such that the ratio between a width of the air gap and a tangential slot gap width between two stator tooth heads lies in a range of 0.25 to 0.5, as disclosed by Li, in order to reduce cogging torque (¶ [0003]: “For the single-phase outer-rotor motor, it has been desired to reduce the cogging torque of the motor and avoid the dead-point position when the rotor stops.”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stettinger as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20080290751 A1, hereafter referred to as Hwang).
Regarding Claim 13/10/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Additionally, Stettinger discloses (see Figure 3) that each stator tooth (2, Page 5, ¶ 4) has a stator tooth neck (Annotated Figure 3) around which a winding (Page 5, ¶ 4) is arranged.
PNG
media_image13.png
514
468
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Stettinger does not disclose that the winding is a copper winding, and that the width of the stator tooth neck is configured such that the magnetic flux in the stator tooth neck does not reach the saturation range during motor operation.
However, Hwang, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figure 4) that the winding (34, ¶ [0035]) is a copper winding (¶ [0016]: “ It is a primary object of the invention to provide an unequal-width slot design with a stator adopting a centralized winding to reduce an end winding length of the motor, a copper wire consumption and a copper loss and to improve the motor efficiency.”), and that the width of the stator tooth neck (33, ¶ [0035]) is configured such that the magnetic flux in the stator tooth neck (33, ¶ [0035]) does not reach the saturation range during motor operation (¶ [0017]: “Another object of the present invention is to provide an unequal-width slot design that adjusts the width of a tooth tip of a stator wound with a coil to be equal to the width of a magnetic pole of a magnet of a rotor to improve the flux linkage of the coil, and also adjusts the tooth width,”) (Claim 1: “(d) examining and verifying a magnetic flux density of a stator tooth and a back iron to prevent the occurrence of a magnetic flux saturation”).
PNG
media_image14.png
356
390
media_image14.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor disclosed by Stettinger such that the winding is a copper winding, and that the width of the stator tooth neck is configured such that the magnetic flux in the stator tooth neck does not reach the saturation range during motor operation, as disclosed by Hwang, in order to reduce cost, prevent copper losses, and improve operating efficiency (¶ [0009]: “ As a result, such method not only saves material costs, but also reduces copper loss and improves motor operating efficiency.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stettinger as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 112994281 A, hereafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding Claim 15/10/1, Stettinger has been discussed above.
Stettinger does not disclose that the ratio of the tangential slot gap width between two stator tooth heads to a tangential width of the stator tooth head is in the range of 0.11 to 0.2.
However, Chen, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figure 2) that the ratio of the tangential slot gap (W_Ss, Page 8, ¶ 2) width between two stator tooth heads (7, Page 8, ¶ 2) to a tangential width (W_Stb, Page 8, ¶ 2) of the stator tooth head (7, Page 8, ¶ 2) is in the range of 0.11 to 0.2 (Page 8, ¶ 2: “In one embodiment, the stator iron core 5 comprises a stator groove 11, the stator tooth shoe 7 the radial total width W_Stb; the groove width W_Ss of the stator groove 11 and the motor pole groove ratio k satisfy that W_Ss/ (W_Stb*k) is more than or equal to 0.11 and less than or equal to 0.28, wherein the rotor pole number of the permanent magnet synchronous motor is 2 *p, p is the pole pair number; the number of slots of the stator iron core 5 is s; The proportion k=2*p/s of the pole groove of the permanent magnet synchronous motor.”).
PNG
media_image15.png
318
452
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor disclosed by Stettinger such that the ratio of the tangential slot gap width between two stator tooth heads to a tangential width of the stator tooth head is in the range of 0.11 to 0.2, as disclosed by Chen, in order to increase torque output (Page 2, ¶ 3: “Therefore, the technical problem to be solved by the invention is to provide a motor stator and a permanent magnet synchronous motor, capable of reducing motor leakage from the stator side, increasing the output torque, improving the motor efficiency.”).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deng et al. (CN 109019269 A) discloses relevant prior art in Figure 7.
Hisayama et al. (CN 100370681 C) discloses relevant prior art in Figures 1-12.
Matsubara et al. (US 20060267427 A1) discloses relevant prior art in Figures 1-9.
Kajiwara et al. (CN 1367569 A) discloses relevant prior art in Figures 1-23.
Sato et al. (US 4143288 A) discloses relevant prior art in Figures 1-8.
Morris et al. (US 3546505 A) discloses relevant prior art in Figures 3-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE FRANK MANN whose telephone number is (703)756-1275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 4:30PM PST.
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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/ALEXANDER A SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834