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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 7-9 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.
Regarding claim 7: This claim requires the balance adjusting hole to “reach” at least one of the point-shaped holes. It is unclear what is meant by the non-technical term “reach”. For example, it could mean they have to touch, the holes can be merged, or just align in the axial or radial direction. Further clarification is required.
Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 7.
Regarding claim 9: This claim uses “reach” in a similar manner to claim 7. Similar clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda (JP3821184 B2, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1: Fukuda discloses a rotor (10) of an electric motor, the rotor comprising:
a first rotor core (12) including a permanent magnet (12a); and
a second rotor core (11) adjacent to the first rotor core (12) in an axial direction and not including the permanent magnet,
wherein the second rotor core includes:
a first group of magnetic path forming holes (11a, 11b) configured to form a first magnetic path for providing saliency to the second rotor core, and
a balance adjusting portion (k) that is provided at at least one point in a circumferential direction and is configured to locally increase or decrease a mass of the second rotor core (paragraph 0015, via slit 11b).
Regarding claim 2: Fukuda discloses the first group of magnetic path forming holes includes a slit (11b) extending along the first magnetic path.
Regarding claim 11: Fukuda discloses the balance adjusting portion (k) is provided in an outer circumference surface of the second rotor core (11, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12: Fukuda discloses the balance adjusting portion (k) is located at a center of a d-axis of the saliency by the first group of the magnetic path forming holes (Fig. 2, paragraphs 0013-0015).
Regarding claim 13: Fukuda discloses the second rotor core (11) is adjacent to a first end surface of the first rotor core (12) in the axial direction (as shown in Fig. 1).
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 3, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda, in view of Tan (US 2020/0195070).
Regarding claim 3: Fukuda discloses the balance adjusting portion in the second rotor core, but does not explicitly disclose the balance adjusting portion is provided radially inward of the first group of magnetic path forming holes in a first end surface of the second rotor core in the axial direction.
However, Tan discloses the balance adjusting portion (12) is provided radially inward of the first group of magnetic path forming holes in a first end surface (9) of the second rotor core in the axial direction (as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second rotor core of Fukuda to include the balance adjusting portion in the radial inward portion of the core, as disclosed by Tan, in order to provide uniform balance along the rotor.
Regarding claim 4: Fukuda modified by Tan disclose the balance adjusting portion, Tan further discloses the balance adjusting portion includes a balance adjusting hole (12) provided in the first end surface of the second rotor core in the axial direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10: Fukuda discloses the balance adjusting portion in the second rotor core, but does not explicitly disclose the balance adjusting portion is provided radially inward of the first group of magnetic path forming holes in a first end surface of the second rotor core in the axial direction.
However, Tan discloses the balance adjusting portion (12) is provided radially inward of the first group of magnetic path forming holes in a first end surface (9) of the second rotor core in the axial direction (as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second rotor core of Fukuda to include the balance adjusting portion in the radial inward portion of the core, as disclosed by Tan, in order to provide uniform balance along the rotor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda, in view of Sano (US 2018/0198331).
Regarding claim 5: Fukuda discloses the first group of magnetic path forming holes, but does not explicitly disclose the first group of magnetic path forming holes includes point-shaped holes arranged along the first magnetic path.
However, Sano discloses the first group of magnetic path forming holes includes point-shaped holes (36, Fig. 11, paragraph 0082) arranged along the first magnetic path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic path forming holes of Fukuda to be point-shaped, as disclosed by Sano, in order to establish a flux path.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda and Sano, as applied to claim 5, further in view of Hiroto et al. (“Hiroto”; JP 2003 219616 A, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 6: Fukuda discloses the balance adjusting portion in the second rotor core, but does not explicitly disclose the balance adjusting portion includes a balance adjusting hole provided in an outer circumference surface of the second rotor core.
However, Hiroto discloses the balance adjusting portion includes a balance adjusting hole (39) provided in an outer circumference surface of the second rotor core (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the balance adjusting portion of the second rotor core of Fukuda to include the balance adjusting hole in the outer circumference, as disclosed by Hiroto, in order to effectively balance the rotor.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda, in view of Lee (US 2021/0344239).
Regarding claim 14: Fukuda discloses a first and second rotor core, but does not explicitly disclose a third rotor core adjacent to a second end surface of the first rotor core in the axial direction, wherein the third rotor core includes a second group of magnetic path forming holes configured to form a second magnetic path for providing saliency to the third rotor core.
However, Lee discloses a third rotor core (310b) adjacent to a second end surface of the first rotor core (310a, Fig. 2) in the axial direction, wherein the third rotor core includes a second group of magnetic path forming holes (akin to the holes housing 320) configured to form a second magnetic path for providing saliency to the third rotor core (via magnets 320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second rotor cores of Fukuda to include the third rotor core of Lee in order to generate additional electricity.
Regarding claim 15: Fukuda modified by Lee disclose the third rotor core, Lee further discloses the third rotor core further includes a balance adjusting portion (311) that is provided at at least one point in the circumferential direction and is configured to locally increase or decrease a mass of the third rotor core (paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 16: Fukuda discloses the second rotor core, but does not explicitly disclose the balance adjusting portion of the second rotor core and the balance adjusting portion of the third rotor core have the same position in the circumferential direction.
However, Lee discloses the balance adjusting portion (311) of the second rotor core (310c) and the balance adjusting portion (311) of the third rotor core (310b) have the same position in the circumferential direction (as 310a-c are all the same).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second rotor core of Fukuda and to include the third rotor core of Lee to have the balancing portions in the same circumferential direction in order to have a uniform design, to allow for better balance.
Regarding claim 17: Fukuda discloses the balance adjusting portion (k) is provided in an outer circumference surface of the second rotor core (Fig. 4), but does not explicitly disclose the first rotor core is separated into a first portion and a second portion in the axial direction;
the second rotor core is located between the first portion and the second portion of the first rotor core in the axial direction.
However, Lee discloses the first rotor core is separated into a first portion (310a) and a second portion (310c) in the axial direction;
the second rotor core (310b) is located between the first portion and the second portion of the first rotor core in the axial direction (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first rotor core of Fukuda to be split and have the second rotor core be between them in the axial direction, as disclosed by Lee, in order to allow for additional flux paths.
Allowable Subject Matter
While no prior art rejection is made for claims 7-9, a final determination of allowable subject matter cannot be made until the term “reach” is clarified, as stated in the 35 USC 112 rejections above. As stated in re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights