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
The applicant’s claim to priority of JP2023-220042 on12/26/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 12/2/24, 6/11/25 and 3/6/25. Each has been annotated and considered.
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 1-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (JP 2018143473 hereinafter Yoshida) in view of Feng et al. (CN 217741398 hereinafter Feng).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 11), Yoshida teaches a cleaner comprising (See at least: Fig. 1):
a suction fan including (See at least: Fig. 1 item 1 “fan unit”):
a fan motor, and an impeller configured to be rotated by the fan motor to generate a suction force to suck in impurities on a surface to be cleaned (See at least: Fig. 4 item 4 DC motor); and
a dust collection bin to accommodate sucked in impurities (See at least: Fig. 1 item 101b dust box), wherein the fan motor includes:
a shaft that is rotatable about a rotational axis of the shaft (See at least: Fig. 4 item 21 shaft),
a rotor fixed to the shaft (See at least Fig. 4 items 4a and 4b inner and outer rotor), and including a plurality of magnetic poles arranged in a rotation direction of the rotor (See at least: As shown in FIG. 5, the inner rotor 4a is magnetized so that two N poles and two S poles are alternately arranged in the circumferential direction.), and
a stator (See at least: Fig. 4 item 4c stator) including:
a plurality of teeth protruding from the core ring toward the rotational axis and arranged radially (See at least: Fig. 4 outer teeth portion 43), and
a plurality of coils arranged so that each coil of the plurality of coils is respectively wound around one tooth of the plurality of teeth (See at least: Fig. 5 items 4c1 element cores and 4c2 coil),
wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth includes:
a protruding end facing the rotor with an air gap between the protruding end and an outer circumferential surface of the rotor (See at least: Fig. 5 inner air gap),
a first flange portion protruding from the protruding end in the rotation direction of the rotor, and
a second flange portion protruding from the protruding end in an opposite direction of the rotation direction of the rotor,
wherein the first flange portion and the second flange portion are asymmetrical with respect to a central line of the tooth extending from the rotational axis (See Figs. 8-9 for flanges, although not explicitly labeled in the reference),
but fails to teach a core ring having an annular shape. However, Feng teaches this limitation (See at least: Figs. 1-4 via item 1 stator and item 111 stator yoke).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yoshida in view of Feng to teach a core ring having an annular shape so that it can be compactly integrated into the design and improve performance and efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida teaches wherein the second flange portion includes a second opposite surface which faces the air gap and extends from the central line in the opposite direction of the rotation direction of the rotor, and a distance of the air gap between the second opposite surface and an outer circumferential surface of the rotor increases in the opposite direction of the rotation direction of the rotor (See at least: Fig. 5; Thereby, the distance (inner air gap) d1 between the inner facing surface of each inner tooth portion 41 and the outer peripheral surface of the inner rotor 4a is the smallest at one end portion in the circumferential direction (tip portion in the counterclockwise direction in FIG. 5). The second end portion is configured to gradually increase from the one end portion toward the other end portion so as to be the largest at the other end portion. Each inner gap d1 is arranged so as to be rotationally symmetric with respect to the rotation axis O.).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida teaches wherein the first flange portion includes a first opposite surface which faces the air gap and extends from the central line in the rotation direction of the rotor, and a distance of the air gap between the first opposite surface and the outer circumferential surface of the rotor is constant (See at least: Fig. 5; Thereby, the distance (inner air gap) d1 between the inner facing surface of each inner tooth portion 41 and the outer peripheral surface of the inner rotor 4a is the smallest at one end portion in the circumferential direction (tip portion in the counterclockwise direction in FIG. 5). The second end portion is configured to gradually increase from the one end portion toward the other end portion so as to be the largest at the other end portion. Each inner gap d1 is arranged so as to be rotationally symmetric with respect to the rotation axis O.).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida teaches wherein the first opposite surface has an arc shape that is concentric with the outer circumferential surface of the rotor, and the second opposite surface is a plane perpendicular to the central line (See at least: Fig. 5; Thereby, the distance (inner air gap) d1 between the inner facing surface of each inner tooth portion 41 and the outer peripheral surface of the inner rotor 4a is the smallest at one end portion in the circumferential direction (tip portion in the counterclockwise direction in FIG. 5). The second end portion is configured to gradually increase from the one end portion toward the other end portion so as to be the largest at the other end portion. Each inner gap d1 is arranged so as to be rotationally symmetric with respect to the rotation axis O.).
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly 13), Yoshida teaches wherein a distance between the central line and an end of the second flange portion is greater than a distance between the central line and an end of the first flange portion (See at least: Fig. 5; Thereby, the distance (inner air gap) d1 between the inner facing surface of each inner tooth portion 41 and the outer peripheral surface of the inner rotor 4a is the smallest at one end portion in the circumferential direction (tip portion in the counterclockwise direction in FIG. 5). The second end portion is configured to gradually increase from the one end portion toward the other end portion so as to be the largest at the other end portion. Each inner gap d1 is arranged so as to be rotationally symmetric with respect to the rotation axis O.).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida teaches wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth includes a first side surface and a second side surface opposite to the first side surface, each of the first side surface and the second side surface being located a same distance from the central line, the first flange portion protrudes from the first side surface, the second flange portion protrudes from the second side surface (See at least: Fig. 5 items 41 inner teeth portion and 4c1 element core).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida teaches wherein a distance from the rotational axis to a first inflection point, the first inflection point being a boundary between the first flange portion and the first side surface, is equal to a distance from the rotational axis to a second inflection point, the second inflection point being a boundary between the second flange portion and the second side surface (See at least: Fig. 5 items 41 inner teeth portion and 4c1 element core).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida teaches wherein the plurality of coils form a three-phase coil group (See at least: The rotation of the inner rotor 4a and the outer rotor 4b can be designed to rotate in opposite directions at other rotation ratios, such as 1: 2 or 2: 1, for example, if driven by three phases.; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoshida teaches wherein the first flange portion includes a first opposite surface which faces the air gap and extends from the central line in the rotation direction of the rotor, the second flange portion includes a second opposite surface which faces the air gap and extends from the central line in the opposite direction of the rotation direction of the rotor, a distance of the air gap between the first opposite surface and an outer circumferential surface of the rotor is constant, and a distance of the air gap between the second opposite surface and the outer circumferential surface of the rotor increases in the opposite direction of the rotation direction of the rotor (Refer at least to claims 2-3 for reasoning and rationale.).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Feng and further in view of Chiao et al. (US 20120062154 hereinafter Chiao).
Regarding claim 9 (and similarly 14), Yoshida fails to teach the following limitation, but Chiao teaches wherein the rotor includes a permanent magnet including the plurality of magnetic poles and having a resistivity that is 10 Ω·cm or less (See at least: [0105] via “whereas more conventional conducting magnets (NdFeB for example) might have a resistivity on the order of 1E-6 Ohm cm. The magnets 1612 are secured to the rotor core 1611 with a sleeve 1613.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Yoshida in view of Chiao to teach wherein the rotor includes a permanent magnet including the plurality of magnetic poles and having a resistivity that is 10 Ω·cm or less so that the motor can generate the power needed for cleaning.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Feng and further in view of Alberto et al. (DE 112022007827 hereinafter Alberto).
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly 15), Yoshida fails to teach the following limitation, but Alberto teaches wherein the fan motor includes a metal cover covering an outer circumferential surface of the rotor (See at least: Fig.s 2 and 5b item 7 “shell portion of the metal housing part”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Yoshida in view of Alberto to teach wherein the fan motor includes a metal cover covering an outer circumferential surface of the rotor so that a sturdy covering made of metal can be used to better protect the motor components inside the covering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights