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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 20230163648).
1. Watanabe et al. teach:
A rotor 711 comprising:
a rotation shaft 10;
a first resin magnet 722 supported by the rotation shaft (fig 29); and
a plurality of second resin magnets 721 provided on a first an outer peripheral surface of the first resin magnet and having magnetic force stronger than a magnetic pole of the first resin magnet (722 is disclosed as rare earth magnet which are stronger in magnetic force than ferrite magnets, para 0169 and MPEP 2112), wherein the first resin magnet has an annular shape (the rotor is annular in all embodiments, fig 1 for example), and
L1>L2 (fig 29), where L1 is a first length that is a length of the first resin magnet in an axial direction C1 (fig 29), and L2 is a second length that is a length of each second resin magnet of the plurality of second resin magnets in the axial direction (fig 29).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, wherein L1 x Br1>L2 x Br2, where Br1 is magnetic force of the first resin magnet, and Br2 is magnetic force of the second resin magnet (since 722 is disclosed as rare earth magnet which are stronger in magnetic force than ferrite magnets, para 0169 and MPEP 2112).
5. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, wherein the first resin magnet includes a plurality of depressions provided on the outer peripheral surface of the first resin magnet (fig 29), the depressions being equally spaced in a circumferential direction of the first resin magnet (fig 29), and the second resin magnets are disposed in the depressions, respectively (fig 29).
9. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, further comprising a first resin part 12 connecting the rotation shaft and the first resin magnet.
10. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 9, further comprising a second resin part 661 & 662 connected to each end in the axial direction of the first and second resin magnets (fig 26).
11. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 10, wherein the second resin part is integrally formed with the first resin part (para 01630.
12. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, wherein the first resin magnet is a ferrite resin magnet, and the second resin magnets are rare earth resin magnets.
13. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, wherein the rotor is a rotor having an even number of magnetic poles (the even number of poles can be seen in fig 3), and each of the first and second resin magnets has a polar anisotropy (the polar anisotropy can be seen in fig 3).
14. Watanabe et al. teach:
An electric motor comprising: the rotor according to claim 1; and a stator 81a.
15. Watanabe et al. teach:
The electric motor according to claim 14, wherein the stator includes a stator core, and L1<L3 x 1.5, where L3 is a third length that is a length of the stator core in the axial direction (fig 35 clearly shows that the rotor’s width is less than 1 and a half times the stator’s width in the axial direction).
16. Watanabe et al. teach:
The electric motor according to claim 14, wherein the stator includes a stator core, and L1<L3 x 1.3, where L3 is a third length that is a length of the stator core in the axial direction (fig 35 clearly shows that the rotor’s width is less than 1 and a third times the stator’s width in the axial direction).
17. Watanabe et al. teach:
A blower comprising: the electric motor 80 according to claim 14; and an impeller 92a to be driven by the electric motor (fig 36).
18. Watanabe et al. teach:
An air conditioner 90 comprising: an indoor unit 91; and an outdoor unit 95 connected to the indoor unit, wherein at least one of the indoor unit or the outdoor unit includes the electric motor according to claim 14 (fig 36).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6-8, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al..
3. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, wherein a first distance D72 that is a maximum distance between the first outer peripheral surface of the second resin magnet and a rotation center axis of the rotor is longer than a second distance D75 that is a maximum distance between an outer peripheral surface of the first resin magnet and the rotation center axis to prevent the ferrite magnets from falling off (para 0140 and fig 34B); but does not teach the respective distance to the respective resin magnets.
However, it is known in the art that the size of the magnet (whether a rare-earth or ferrite magnet) can determine the magnetic force of the magnet (a larger rare-earth translates to a larger denser magnetic force). The person having ordinary skill in the art would see that having the respective distance to the respective resin magnets would increase the magnetic force of the rotor while preventing the ferrite magnets from falling off. Thus, the overall motor would be improved.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Watanabe et al. being filed to modify it so that a first distance that is a maximum distance between the first outer peripheral surface of the first resin magnet and a rotation center axis of the rotor is longer than a second distance that is a maximum distance between an outer peripheral surface of the second resin magnet and the rotation center axis, as taught by Watanabe et al. so as to have an improved motor.
4. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, wherein a third distance r1 that is a distance between a rotation center axis of the rotor and a center portion of the outer peripheral surface 422v of the second resin magnet in the axial direction is longer than a fourth distance r2 that is a distance between the rotation center axis and an end of the outer peripheral surface 422w of the second resin magnet in the axial direction (fig 20B) ; but does not teach the respective distance to the respective resin magnets.
However, it is known in the art that the size of the magnet (whether a rare-earth or ferrite magnet) can determine the magnetic force of the magnet (a larger rare-earth translates to a larger denser magnetic force). The person having ordinary skill in the art would see that having the respective distance to the respective resin magnets would increase the magnetic force of the rotor while preventing the ferrite magnets from falling off. Thus, the overall motor would be improved.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Watanabe et al. being filed to modify it so that a third distance that is a distance between a rotation center axis of the rotor and a center portion of the outer peripheral surface of the first resin magnet in the axial direction is longer than a fourth distance that is a distance between the rotation center axis and an end of the outer peripheral surface of the first resin magnet in the axial direction, as taught by Watanabe et al. so as to have an improved motor.
PNG
media_image2.png
671
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
6. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 5, wherein each depression of the plurality of depressions includes a first portion 422v in which the second resin magnet 21 (corresponding to Watanabe et al. second resin magnet) is disposed and a second portion 422w located on an end surface side in the axial direction of the first resin magnet (corresponding to Watanabe et al. second resin magnet) from the first portion, and a depth of the second portion is deeper than a depth of the first portion (fig 20B above). Since first and second resin magnets are essentially opposite between the claimed invention and that of the prior art, the limitations of claim 6 are essentially the limitations of claims 3 and 4, and motivation was provided for claims 3 and 4, the examiner concludes that the limitations of claim 6 would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the same reasons as claims 3 and 4 are obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Watanabe et al. was effectively filed to modify it so that each depression of the plurality of depressions includes a first portion in which the second resin magnet is disposed and a second portion located on an end surface side in the axial direction of the first resin magnet from the first portion, and a depth of the second portion is deeper than a depth of the first portion, as taught by Watanabe et al. so as to improve the motor.
7. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, wherein the second resin magnet (corresponding to Watanabe et al. 1st resin magnet 21) includes a pillar 41 extending in the axial direction (fig 20B) and a projecting portion 442e extending inward in a radial direction from an end portion in the axial direction of the pillar (fig 20B), and the first resin magnet (corresponding to Watanabe et al. second resin magnet 22) is connected to the projecting portion (fig 20B). Since first and second resin magnets are essentially opposite between the claimed invention and that of the prior art, the limitations of claim 7 are essentially the limitations of claims (describe the magnet in a different way) 3, 4, and 6, and motivation was provided for claims 3 and 4, the examiner concludes that the limitations of claim 7 would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the same reasons as claims 3 and 4 are obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Watanabe et al. was effectively filed to modify it so that the second resin magnet includes a pillar extending in the axial direction and a projecting portion extending inward in a radial direction from an end portion in the axial direction of the pillar, and the first resin magnet is connected to the projecting portion, as taught by Watanabe et al. so as to improve the motor.
8. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, wherein a fifth distance (from C1-422h, fig 20B) that is a distance between the rotation center axis of the rotor C1 and a center portion of an inner peripheral surface 422h of the first resin magnet (corresponding to Watanabe et al. 2nd magnet 21, fig 20B) in the axial direction is shorter than a sixth distance (from C1-inner edge of 422p, fig 20B) that is a distance between the rotation center axis C1 of the rotor and an end of the inner peripheral surface (inner edge of 422p) of the first resin magnet (corresponding to Watanabe et al. 2nd magnet 21, fig 20B) in the axial direction.
Since first and second resin magnets are essentially opposite between the claimed invention and that of the prior art, the limitations of claim 8 are essentially the limitations of claims 3 and 4 described in a different way, and motivation was provided for claims 3 and 4, the examiner concludes that the limitations of claim 8 would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the same reasons as claims 3 and 4 are obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Watanabe et al. was effectively filed to modify it so that a fifth distance that is a distance between the rotation center axis of the rotor and a center portion of an inner peripheral surface of the first resin magnet in the axial direction is shorter than a sixth distance that is a distance between the rotation center axis of the rotor and an end of the inner peripheral surface of the first resin magnet in the axial direction, as taught by Watanabe et al. so as to improve the motor.
19. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 2, wherein a first distance that is a maximum distance between the outer peripheral surface of the first resin magnet and a rotation center axis of the rotor is the same as a second distance that is a maximum distance between an outer peripheral surface of the second resin magnet and the rotation center axis (fig 29); but does not teach that the 1st distance is longer than the 2nd distance.
However, the graph in fig 10 shows that the size of the ferrite magnets inhibit an abrupt change in surface flux density; qualifying the 1st and 2nd distance result effective variables crucial in improving the motor’s performance (para 0086). One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the 1st and 2nd distances to comply with the limitations of claim 19 for the same benefit (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Watanabe et al. to modify it so that the 1st distance is longer than the 2nd distance, as taught by Watanabe et al. so as to improve the motor performance
20. Watanabe et al. teach:
The rotor according to claim 1, wherein a third distance r1 that is a distance between a rotation center axis of the rotor and a center portion of the outer peripheral surface 422v of the second resin magnet in the axial direction is longer than a fourth distance r2 that is a distance between the rotation center axis and an end of the outer peripheral surface 422w of the second resin magnet in the axial direction (fig 20B) ; but does not teach the respective distance to the respective resin magnets.
However, it is known in the art that the size of the magnet (whether a rare-earth or ferrite magnet) can determine the magnetic force of the magnet (a larger rare-earth translates to a larger denser magnetic force). The person having ordinary skill in the art would see that having the respective distance to the respective resin magnets would increase the magnetic force of the rotor while preventing the ferrite magnets from falling off. Thus, the overall motor would be improved.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Watanabe et al. being filed to modify it so that a third distance that is a distance between a rotation center axis of the rotor and a center portion of the outer peripheral surface of the first resin magnet in the axial direction is longer than a fourth distance that is a distance between the rotation center axis and an end of the outer peripheral surface of the first resin magnet in the axial direction, as taught by Watanabe et al. so as to have an improved motor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834