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 06 November 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (JP 2019-161750).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a rotor 10 of a rotary electric machine, the rotor including a hollow shaft 20 and an annular rotor core 30 fixed to the shaft through interference fitting, and the rotor comprising:
a plurality of refrigerant holes 22 provided in the shaft at intervals in a circumferential direction so as to communicate with a shaft center hole of the shaft;
a plurality of refrigerant passages 33 provided in the rotor core at intervals in the circumferential direction so as to extend in an axial direction on a radially outer side of a core center hole 31 of the rotor core;
a plurality of communication passages 82 provided in the rotor core at intervals in the circumferential direction so as to communicate with the corresponding refrigerant holes 22 and communicate with the corresponding refrigerant passages 33 at two different locations in the axial direction (i.e., coolant distribution plate 80 interposed between two different communication passages 82; Fig.5); and
a plurality of stress relaxation slots 32 provided in the rotor core at intervals in the circumferential direction so as to surround the core center hole on a radially inner side of the refrigerant passages 33 without interfering with the communication passages (Fig.4).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
443
media_image1.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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemoto et al. (US 12,500,464) in view of Watanabe (US 11,837,920).
Regarding claim 1, Ikemoto teaches a rotor of a rotary electric machine, the rotor including a hollow shaft 3 and an annular rotor core 4 fixed to the shaft through interference fitting, and the rotor comprising:
a plurality of refrigerant holes 3b provided in the shaft at intervals in a circumferential direction so as to communicate with a shaft center hole of the shaft (c.5:14-24);
a plurality of refrigerant passages 42 provided in the rotor core at intervals in the circumferential direction so as to extend in an axial direction on a radially outer side of a core center hole 4c of the rotor core;
a plurality of communication passages 41 provided in the rotor core at intervals in the circumferential direction so as to communicate with the corresponding refrigerant holes 42 and communicate with the corresponding refrigerant passages at two different locations in the axial direction (Figs.1-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
378
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
478
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ikemoto does not teach “a plurality of stress relaxation slots provided in the rotor core at intervals in the circumferential direction so as to surround the core center hole [4c] on a radially inner side of the refrigerant passages [42] without interfering with the communication passages [41].”
But, Watanabe teaches a rotor of a rotary electric machine, the rotor including a plurality of refrigerant passages 16 provided in the rotor core 10 at intervals in the circumferential direction so as to extend in an axial direction on a radially outer side of a core center hole 15 of the rotor core (c.5:64-c.6:5) and a plurality of stress relaxation slots (slits) 21/22 provided in the rotor core at intervals in the circumferential direction so as to surround the core center hole 15 on a radially inner side of the refrigerant passages 16. Deformation of inter-slit portions 25 formed by the slits 21/22 allows the shaft 4 to be easily inserted into the center hole to improve productivity (c.5:57-61; c.8:1-6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Ikemoto with a plurality of stress relaxation slots provided in the rotor core at intervals in the circumferential direction so as to surround the core center hole on a radially inner side of the refrigerant passages since Watanabe teaches they would have allowed the shaft to be easily inserted into the center hole to improve productivity. Further, regarding the feature of providing Watanabe’s stress relaxation slots in the rotor core at intervals in the circumferential direction without interfering with the communication passages of Ikemoto, this would follow as a consequence of the combination since Watanabe’s stress relaxation slots are not used for oil/refrigerant flow as are Ikemoto’s communication passages 41 and therefore would not be in communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach the claimed rotor including, inter alia, “…the stress relaxation slots include a plurality of first slots provided on a radially outer side of the inner communication portion of the communication passages, a plurality of second slots provided between the intermediate communication portions of the communication passages in the circumferential direction, a plurality of third slots provided on a radially inner side of the outer communication portion of the communication passages, and a plurality of fourth slots provided so as to be aligned in the circumferential direction along the core center hole in a region other than the central region of the rotor core” (claim 2).
This determination is based on keyword and citation searches performed in a limited number of subclasses. Artificial intelligence search tools were employed. Nomenclature in the art is inconsistent. Keyword searches in the foreign art was limited to the text of the abstract. For these reasons, the scope of the search was necessarily truncated and relevant art classified outside the subclasses searched and/or using different terminology or keywords may not have been reviewed. See the Search Notes for details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 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 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights