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 .
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 7, 11 and 14 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 7 recites “the rotor rivet has a tensile strength τ satisfying 0.2τ≤Mrπ(n/D)2/225≤ 0.7τ … n is a maximum rotational speed of the rotor assembly,” but the maximum rotational speed has not been clearly defined. The maximum rotational speed changes depending on the amount of load on a motor, and such a parameter has not been set in the claim or the specification. For examination purposes, the maximum rotational speed will be construed as no load maximum rotational speed.
Claim 11 recites “0.5<r/R<0.9,” but r has not been defined in claim 1 or 11. For examination purposes, r will be construed as “a distance between a central axis of the rod portion and a central axis of the rotor core” as recited in claim 7.
Claim 14 recites “the third balance weight has a radial width of W greater than 2D,” but it has not clearly defined D. For examination purposes, D will be construed as “the diameter of the rod portion” as recited in claim 5 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozumi (US 2012/0098359 A1) in view of Webster (US 2,482,391).
Regarding claim 1, Morozumi discloses a rotor assembly (10) comprising:
a rotor body (12) comprising:
a rotor core (12) for accommodating a permanent magnet (14),
end plates (16, 18), and
at least one balance weight (20, 22),
wherein the end plates (16, 18) are arranged at two axial ends of the rotor core (12), respectively, and the at least one balance weight (20, 22) is disposed at a side of at least one of the end plates (16, 18) facing away from the rotor core (12); and
at least one rotor rivet (26a-c) axially penetrating the rotor body (12) to fix the rotor body (12) into one piece; each of the at least one rotor rivet (26a-c) comprising a rod portion (see annotation below), a head portion (see annotation below), and a riveting portion (see annotation below); wherein the head portion and the riveting portion are located at two ends of the rod portion in a length direction of the rod portion (FIG. 1-3), respectively,
PNG
media_image1.png
232
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
at least one of the at least one balance weight (20, 22) is a first balance weight (20) having a rivet hole (24).
Morozumi does not disclose the rivet hole has a first hole segment configured to engage with the rod portion and a second hole segment configured to engage with the riveting portion,
the second hole segment has an expanded hole contour relative to the first hole segment, and
the riveting portion being at least partially filled in the second hole segment.
Webster discloses the rivet hole has a first hole segment (14) configured to engage with the rod portion (11) and a second hole segment (15) configured to engage with the riveting portion (16),
the second hole segment (15) has an expanded hole contour relative to the first hole segment (14), and
the riveting portion (16) being at least partially filled in the second hole segment (15; FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Morozumi in view of Webster to disclose the rivet hole has a first hole segment configured to engage with the rod portion and a second hole segment configured to engage with the riveting portion, the second hole segment has an expanded hole contour relative to the first hole segment, and the riveting portion being at least partially filled in the second hole segment, for the advantages of a full tensile and full shear strength of the rivet.
Regarding claim 2/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Webster further discloses the second hole segment (15) has a cross-sectional area gradually increasing in a direction away from the first hole segment (14; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Webster further discloses the second hole segment (15) is fully filled with the riveting portion (16; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 5/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Webster further discloses the rod portion (11) has a diameter of D; and the riveting portion has a maximum diameter of D0, where 1.2D≤D0≤2D (col. 4 ll. 8-16).
Per the values given by Webster, minD0=D+D*tan(30) and maxD0=D+D*tan(33)), which give a range of 1.58D-1.66D for D0.
Regarding claim 8/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi further discloses the rotor body (12) has A magnetic poles (magnet 14), wherein A is a positive integer (6 poles); and
the at least one rotor rivet (26a-c) comprises B rotor rivets (26a-c), wherein B is a positive integer (3 rivets)
wherein A and B satisfy B≤A-2 (3≤6-2=4; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 9/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi further discloses the rotor rivet (26a-c) is disposed between two adjacent magnetic poles (magnet 14) of the rotor body (12).
Regarding claim 10/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi further discloses the at least one rotor rivet (26a-c) comprises a plurality of rotor rivets (26a-c) arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the rotor core (12); and
the riveting portions (see annotation below) of the plurality of rotor rivets (26a-c) are located at one side (bottom side in FIG. 2) of the rotor core (12) in an axial direction of the rotor core (12).
PNG
media_image1.png
232
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi further discloses the rotor core has an outer radius of R, where 0.5<r/R<0.9 (FIG. 2, the through holes 24 are located midway between 0.5R and R).
Regarding claim 12/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. While Morozumi in view of Webster does not disclose the rod portion has a diameter of D ranging from 3 mm to 6 mm, choosing an appropriate diameter for the rivet is obvious to try out of the finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Depending on the diameter of the rotor core, the size of the balancing weight, the diameter of the rivet would have a limit on how small or large it can be. Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the rivet rod portion with a diameter of D ranging from 3 mm to 6 mm.
Regarding claim 14/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi further discloses at least one of the at least one balance weight (20, 22) is a third balance weight (22); and the riveting portion is disposed at the third balance weight (22; FIG. 3); and the third balance weight (22) has a radial width of W greater than 2D (FIG. 3, the hole 24 is less than 0.5W, making W greater than 2D).
Regarding claim 16/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi further discloses the riveting portion has a volume greater than or equal to a volume of the head portion; and/or
the riveting portion has a diameter greater than or equal to a diameter of the head portion (FIG. 4 discloses both ends of the rivet 26a-c has the same size).
Regarding claim 17/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi further discloses a permanent magnet synchronous motor (42) comprising:
a stator assembly (46); and
the rotor assembly (10) according to claim 1, the rotor assembly (10) being rotatable relative to the stator assembly (46; FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 18/17, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 17. Morozumi further discloses an electric compressor (100) comprising:
a compression component (40); and
a driving component (42) configured to drive the compression component (40) to perform a compression operation (¶ [0054]), the driving component (42) comprising the permanent magnet synchronous motor (42) according to claim 17 (FIG. 4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozumi (US 2012/0098359 A1) in view of Webster (US 2,482,391) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boxberg et al. (US 2014/0265717 A1).
Regarding claim 4/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi in view of Webster does not disclose the riveting portion comprises:
a sunk section located within the second hole segment; and
an exposed section located outside the second hole segment and protruding from a surface of the first balance weight.
Boxberg discloses a fastener (38) comprises
a sunk section located within the second hole segment (50); and
an exposed section located outside the second hole segment (50) and protruding from a surface of a short-circuit ring (30).
PNG
media_image2.png
263
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Boxberg’s disclosure can be used to modify Morozumi and Webster, such that the head of the riveting portion is protruding from the hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Morozumi in view of Webster, further in view of Boxberg to disclose the riveting portion comprises: a sunk section located within the second hole segment; and an exposed section located outside the second hole segment and protruding from a surface of the first balance weight, as evidenced by Morozumi, Webster, Yogo et al. (US 11,218,041), Kim et al. (US 2019/0376514), changing the shape of the riveting or swaging portion is a simple substitution of one known shape with another known shape, and thus, merely having the riveting portion protruding from the hole is not new.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozumi (US 2012/0098359 A1) in view of Webster (US 2,482,391) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lovejoy et al. (US 5,179,852).
Regarding claim 6/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi in view of Webster does not disclose the rotor rivet has a hardness ranging from HRB50 to HRB200.
Lovejoy discloses the rivet has a hardness ranging from HRB50 to HRB200 (col. 7 ll. 21-22; HRC30 is about HRB105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Morozumi in view of Webster, further in view of Lovejoy to disclose the rotor rivet has a hardness ranging from HRB50 to HRB200, for the advantages of reducing wear during peening of the rivet (col. 7 ll. 22-25).
Claims 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozumi (US 2012/0098359 A1) in view of Webster (US 2,482,391) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0376514 A1).
Regarding claim 13/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi in view of Webster does not disclose two balance weights of different masses are arranged at two sides of the rotor body, respectively, the heavier balance weight of the two balance weights having a mass of M.
Kim discloses two balance weights (139a, b) of different masses (FIG. 8) are arranged at two sides of the rotor body (135), respectively, the heavier balance weight (139a) of the two balance weights (139a, b) having a mass of M (¶ [0103]-[0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Morozumi in view of Webster, further in view of Kim to disclose two balance weights of different masses are arranged at two sides of the rotor body, respectively, the heavier balance weight of the two balance weights having a mass of M, for the advantages of effectively reducing eccentric load.
Regarding claim 19/18, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 18. Morozumi in view of Webster does not disclose an air conditioning system comprising the electric compressor according to claim 18.
Kim discloses an air conditioning system comprising the electric compressor according to claim 18 (¶ [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Morozumi in view of Webster, further in view of Kim to disclose an air conditioning system comprising the electric compressor according to claim 18, as disclosed in Kim, the use of compressors in air conditioners is widely known.
Regarding claim 20/19, Morozumi in view of Webster and Kim was discussed above in claim 19. Kim further discloses a vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body (a vehicle would inherently have a vehicle body); and
the air conditioning system according to claim 19, the air conditioning system being mounted to the vehicle body (¶ [0003] compressor used in an air conditioning of a vehicle would be attached to the vehicle body).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Morozumi in view of Webster, further in view of Kim to disclose a vehicle comprising: a vehicle body; and the air conditioning system according to claim 19, the air conditioning system being mounted to the vehicle body, as disclosed in Kim, the use of compressors in air conditioners is widely known.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozumi (US 2012/0098359 A1) in view of Webster (US 2,482,391) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masuko et al. (WO 2022/144967 A1).
Regarding claim 15/1, Morozumi in view of Webster was discussed above in claim 1. Morozumi in view of Webster does not disclose one of the end plates sandwiched between the rotor core and the balance weight on which the riveting portion is disposed has a thickness greater than or equal to 0.8 mm.
Masuko discloses one of the end plates (41, 42) sandwiched between the rotor core (10) and the balance weight (2, 3) on which the riveting portion (both top and bottom plates has riveting portions of a rivet) is disposed has a thickness greater than or equal to 0.8 mm.
PNG
media_image3.png
156
1086
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Morozumi in view of Webster, further in view of Masuko to disclose one of the end plates sandwiched between the rotor core and the balance weight on which the riveting portion is disposed has a thickness greater than or equal to 0.8 mm, for the advantages of not limiting the magnetic flux flow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the specific limitation of “the rotor rivet has a tensile strength τ satisfying 0.2τ≤Mrπ(n/D)2/225≤ 0.7τ, wherein: r represents a distance between a central axis of the rod portion and a central axis of the rotor core; M is a mass of the balance weight; n is a maximum rotational speed of the rotor assembly; and D is a diameter of the rod portion” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Yang et al. (CN 108616180 A) discloses a rivet to hold together a rotor, the rivet having sufficient tensile strength to bear the rotor rotating at high speeds, but does not disclose the specific range of tensile strength which satisfies the equation above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (CN 108616180 A) was discussed above in allowable subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Seye 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.
/MINKI CHANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights