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 .
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 07/03/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [19] [20] and [26] recite a ‘chamber’ which appears to refer to the chamfer cited elsewhere. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 6 recite “wherein chamfers formed” which should read “wherein chamfers are formed”.
Claims 3-5, 8, 13, and 17 recite a ‘chamber’ which appears to refer to the chamfer cited elsewhere. 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 3-5, 8, 13-14, 17, and 18 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.
Claims 3-5, 8, 13, and 17 recite a ‘chamber’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as though it recites a ‘chamfer’ as recited elsewhere.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a magnetic center line" in line 3-4 and “the magnetic center line in line 4, line 6, and again in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; i.e. two distances are claimed and two lines appear in Figure 13, but the claim terminology does not distinguish between the two.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a magnetic center line" in line 3-4 and “the magnetic center line in line 4, line 6, and again in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; i.e. two distances are claimed and two lines appear in Figure 13, but the claim terminology does not distinguish between the two.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “magnetic center line” in claims 14 and 18 is insufficiently defined by the specification to impart the required clarity of meaning to determine the scope of the claim. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define how the term is used with respect to the structure of the magnet, what the line refers to with regard to the flux or magnetic field, or how to differentiate between the two lines shown in Fig. 13, to determine the two distances (dm and db) claimed in claims 14 and 18. (See also MPEP 2173.02.II)
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 1-2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 20090224622).
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses a magnet 229 comprising a plurality of pole regions formed in an arc shape and arranged in parallel in a circumferential direction (Fig. 5), wherein chamfers formed on inner surfaces of both ends of the pole region (Fig. 8).
KIM does not disclose the claimed range.
KIM teaches that arrangements of different relative radial lengths of chamfers and pole regions can be used in a magnet (see Fig. 8), making the radial lengths result effective variables, in order to improve cogging torque (see para [0120-0123]).
Thus, it 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 to arrange the radial lengths according to the claimed value obtained by dividing a radial length of the chamfer by a radial length of the pole region is between 0.20 and 0.21.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the cogging torque, as taught by KIM (see para [0120-0123]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
PNG
media_image1.png
735
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
586
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, KIM teaches the magnet of claim 1, wherein the value obtained by dividing the radial length of the chamfer by the radial length of the pole region is between 0.208 and 0.209.
Regarding claim 5, KIM teaches the magnet of claim 1, wherein a cross section of the [chamfer] is formed as a straight line or a curve.
Regarding claim 19, KIM discloses a motor comprising: a stator 210; and a rotor 220 including a rotor core arranged radially outside the stator and a plurality of magnets 22 arranged on an inner surface of the rotor core and facing the stator (Fig. 5), wherein the magnet is the magnet according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, KIM discloses a washing machine comprising the motor according to claim 19.
Regarding claim 9, KIM discloses a magnet 229 comprising a plurality of pole regions formed in an arc shape and arranged in parallel in a circumferential direction (Fig. 5 and 8), wherein each of the plurality of pole regions has a magnetic focus center different from a center of an inner diameter of the plurality of pole regions (para [0127]), chamfers formed on inner surfaces of both ends of the pole region (Fig. 5 and 8),
KIM does not disclose the claimed range.
KIM teaches that arrangements of different relative radial lengths of chamfers and pole regions can be used in a magnet (see Fig. 8), making the radial lengths result effective variables, in order to improve cogging torque (see para [0120-0123]).
Thus, it 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 to arrange the radial lengths according to the claimed value obtained by dividing a radial length of the chamfer by a radial length of the pole region is between 0.16 and 0.17.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the cogging torque, as taught by KIM (see para [0120-0123]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 10, KIM teaches the magnet of claim 9, wherein KIM teaches the value obtained by dividing the radial length of the chamfer by the radial length of the pole region is between 0.166 and 0.167.
Regarding claim 13, KIM teaches the magnet of claim 9, wherein a cross section of the [chamfer] is formed as a straight line or a curve.
Claims 3-4, 6-8, 11-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TUCKER (US 20220140677).
Regarding claim 3, KIM teaches the magnet of claim 1.
However, KIM does not teach a value obtained by dividing a circumferential length of the [chamfer] by a circumferential length of the pole region is between 0.19 and 0.20.
TUCKER teaches that arrangements of different circumferential lengths can be used in a magnet (see para [0050]), making the circumferential lengths result effective variables, in order to improve cogging torque (see para [0050]).
PNG
media_image3.png
583
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it 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 to arrange the value obtained by dividing a circumferential length of the [chamfer] by a circumferential length of the pole region according to the claimed circumferential lengths between 0.19 and 0.20.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the cogging torque, as taught by TUCKER (see para [0050]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 4, KIM in view of TUCKER teaches the magnet of claim 3, wherein TUCKER teaches value obtained by dividing the circumferential length of the [chamfer] by the circumferential length of the pole region is between 0.193 and 0.194.
Regarding claim 6, KIM discloses a magnet 229 comprising a plurality of pole regions formed in an arc shape and arranged in parallel in a circumferential direction, wherein chamfers formed on inner surfaces of both ends of the pole region (Fig. 5 and 8).
However, KIM does not teach a value obtained by dividing a circumferential length of the chamfer by a circumferential length of the pole region is between 0.19 and 0.20.
TUCKER teaches that arrangements of different circumferential lengths can be used in a magnet (see para [0050]), making the circumferential lengths result effective variables, in order to improve cogging torque (see para [0050]).
Thus, it 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 to arrange the value obtained by dividing a circumferential length of the [chamfer] by a circumferential length of the pole region according to the claimed circumferential lengths between 0.19 and 0.20.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the cogging torque, as taught by TUCKER (see para [0050]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 7, KIM in view of TUCKER teaches the magnet of claim 6, wherein TUCKER teaches the value obtained by dividing the circumferential length of the chamfer by the circumferential length of the pole region is between 0.193 and 0.194.
Regarding claim 8, KIM in view of TUCKER teaches the magnet of claim 6, wherein KIM and TUCKER teach a cross section of the [chamfer] is formed as a straight line or a curve.
Regarding claim 11, KIM teaches the magnet of claim 9.
However, KIM does not teach a value obtained by dividing a circumferential length of the chamfer by a circumferential length of the pole region is between 0.155 and 0.165.
TUCKER teaches that arrangements of different circumferential lengths can be used in a magnet (see para [0050]), making the circumferential lengths result effective variables, in order to improve cogging torque (see para [0050]).
Thus, it 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 to arrange the value obtained by dividing a circumferential length of the [chamfer] by a circumferential length of the pole region according to the claimed circumferential lengths between 0.155 and 0.165.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the cogging torque, as taught by TUCKER (see para [0050]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 12, KIM in view of TUCKER teaches the magnet of claim 11, wherein TUCKER teaches the value obtained by dividing the circumferential length of the chamfer by the circumferential length of the pole region is between 0.1595 and 0.1605.
Regarding claim 15, KIM discloses a magnet 229 comprising a plurality of pole regions formed in an arc shape and arranged in parallel in a circumferential direction (Fig. 5 and 8), wherein each of the plurality of pole regions has a magnetic focus center different from a center of an inner diameter of the plurality of pole regions (para [0127]), chamfers formed on inner surfaces of both ends of the pole region (Fig. 5 and 8).
However, KIM does not disclose a value obtained by dividing a circumferential length of the chamfer by a circumferential length of the pole region is between 0.155 and 0.165.
TUCKER teaches that arrangements of different circumferential lengths can be used in a magnet (see para [0050]), making the circumferential lengths result effective variables, in order to improve cogging torque (see para [0050]).
Thus, it 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 to arrange the value obtained by dividing a circumferential length of the [chamfer] by a circumferential length of the pole region according to the claimed circumferential lengths between 0.155 and 0.165.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the cogging torque, as taught by TUCKER (see para [0050]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 16, KIM in view of TUCKER teaches the magnet of claim 15, wherein TUCKER teaches the value obtained by dividing the circumferential length of the chamfer by the circumferential length of the pole region is between 0.1595 and 0.1605.
Regarding claim 17, KIM in view of TUCKER teaches the magnet of claim 15, wherein KIM and TUCKER teach a cross section of the [chamfer] is formed as a straight line or a curve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20060049709-A1 Noh is a US equivalent of a previously cited Korean document; US-20120262020-A1 SMITH teaches a flux focusing arrangement using different magnetic flux center lines in a plurality of magnets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN STEFANON whose telephone number is (703)756-4648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays 8AM - 5PM EDT.
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.
/JUSTIN STEFANON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights