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 . Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 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, 4, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horii et al. (US 20160261158 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Horii discloses a rotor, comprising:
a rotor core (core, annotated fig. 2) extending in an axial direction (fig. 1);
a permanent magnet housing hole (hole, annotated fig. 2) formed in the axial direction along an outer circumferential surface of the rotor core in a perpendicular cross section of a rotation axis of the rotor core;
a permanent magnet (magnets, annotated fig. 2) housed in the permanent magnet housing hole;
a coolant flow path (channel, annotated fig. 2) formed along the permanent magnet housing hole inward of the permanent magnet housing hole in the perpendicular cross section in a radial direction of the rotor core, the coolant flow path communicating with the permanent magnet housing hole (see figs. 3-5), the coolant flow path being configured to seal a coolant cooling the permanent magnet (implied); and
a sheet (sheet, annotated fig. 2, see also adhesive 22 in figs. 4 and 5) disposed inside the permanent magnet housing hole between an inner wall surface of the permanent magnet housing hole and a surface of the permanent magnet, the sheet closely adhering the permanent magnet to the inner wall surface (see abstract: “permanent magnets are fixed to an inner wall surface of the magnet housing apertures by an adhesive that is disposed only between a wall surface of the permanent magnets that is positioned on a radially outer side and the inner wall surface of the magnet housing apertures so as to expose a region of a wall surface of the permanent magnets that is positioned on a radially inner side that faces the linking flow channel.”).
Regarding claim 2, Horii discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the permanent magnet is plate-shaped (see magnets fig. 2 and “[0024] The permanent magnets 20 have cross sections perpendicular to an axial direction of the shaft 12 that are rectangular shapes, and are housed in the respective magnet housing apertures 16.”), and the sheet is disposed on a major surface of the permanent magnet at a backside in a rotation direction of the rotor (see figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, Horii discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the permanent magnet is plate-shaped, and the sheet is disposed on a major surface of the permanent magnet (discussed regarding claim 2).
Regarding claim 8, Horii discloses a rotating electric machine, comprising:
the rotor according to claim 1; and
a stator disposed to face a circumferential surface of the rotor (see fig. 1 and “[0018] In FIGS. 1 through 3, an embedded permanent magnet rotary electric machine 100 includes: an annular stator 1; a cylindrical frame 4 inside which the stator 1 is housed and held; a front frame 7 and a rear frame 8 that respectively include bearings 9 and 10, that are disposed at two axial ends of the frame 4, and that together with the frame 4 form a sealed space; a rotor 11 that is rotatably disposed inside the stator 1 such that a shaft 12 is supported by the bearings 9 and 10; and an external oil pumping mechanism 35.”).
Regarding claim 9, Horii discloses the rotating electric machine according to claim 8, wherein the permanent magnet is plate-shaped, and the sheet is disposed on a major surface of the permanent magnet at a backside in a rotation direction of the rotor. (this limitation was discussed regarding claim 2)
Regarding claim 11, Horii discloses the rotating electric machine according to claim 8, wherein the permanent magnet is plate-shaped, and the sheet is disposed on a major surface of the permanent magnet. (this limitation was discussed regarding claim 4)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (US 20070052313 A1) in view of Sawahata et al. (US 20230291260 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Horii discloses the rotor according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the permanent magnet includes a plurality of permanent magnet parts, and the sheet also is disposed between the plurality of permanent magnet parts.
Sawahata discloses a rotor for an electric machine wherein the rotor core includes holes to house a plurality of permanent magnets (see fig. 6 and 7). Sawahata furthermore discloses that instead of using a single long magnet, it is preferrable to use a plurality of magnets, (see fig. 8 and “[0047] Embodiment 2 is different from Embodiment 1 in that the magnet 201 is divided. An eddy current is generated in the magnet 201, which results in an eddy current loss. As a countermeasure for reducing the eddy current loss, it is effective to arrange a plurality of divided magnets.”).
To reduce eddy current and keep the magnets mechanically attached together, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that to modify the rotor in such a way that: the permanent magnet includes a plurality of permanent magnet parts, and the sheet also is disposed between the plurality of permanent magnet parts.
Regarding claim 10, Horii discloses the rotating electric machine according to claim 8, wherein the permanent magnet includes a plurality of permanent magnet parts, and the sheet also is disposed between the plurality of permanent magnet parts. (discussed above regarding claim 3)
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (US 20070052313 A1) in view of Hori, et al. (US 20230283125 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Horii discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the rotor core includes:
a plurality of stacked electrical steel sheets (para [0021]: “[0021] The rotor core 13 is produced by laminating and integrating annular core laminations that are punched from a thin electromagnetic steel sheet so as to be positioned by penetrating apertures 14, and has a shaft insertion aperture 15 that passes through a central position.”); and
end plates disposed at two end surfaces of the plurality of stacked electrical steel sheets, and the sheet is further disposed between the end plates and the end surfaces of the permanent magnet (para [0020]: “a first end plate 25 and a second end plate 29 that are press-fitted onto and fixed to the shaft 12, and that are disposed so as to contact two axial end surfaces of the rotor core 13.”).
Regarding claim 12, Horii discloses the rotating electric machine according to claim 8, wherein the rotor core includes: a plurality of stacked electrical steel sheets; and end plates disposed at two end surfaces of the plurality of stacked electrical steel sheets, and the sheet is further disposed between the end plates and the end surfaces of the permanent magnet (discussed regarding claim 5).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (US 20070052313 A1) in view of Uchida, K. (US 20200235619 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Horii discloses the rotor according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheet is disposed at all surfaces of the permanent magnet.
PNG
media_image2.png
337
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
333
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Uchida discloses, referring to figs. 2 and 5, a pair of magnet parts wrapped by an insulator placed inside each hole of the rotor core to prevent potential eddy current losses in the rotor core (“[0006] However, in the technique disclosed in Patent Document 1, since the magnets are pressed against the rotor core and fixed thereto, there is a possibility that insulation between the rotor core and the magnets may not be ensured. Therefore, an eddy current loss may occur when the magnets and the rotor core conduct.”)
To reduce eddy current, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the sheet is disposed at all surfaces of the permanent magnet.
Regarding claim 13, Horii discloses the rotating electric machine according to claim 8, wherein the sheet is disposed at all surfaces of the permanent magnet. (this limitation was discussed regarding claim 6)
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (US 20070052313 A1) in view of Katayama, S. (US 20190097478 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Horii discloses the rotor according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the sheet is foamable.
Katayama discloses the limitations of claim 1 (see fig. 2) and uses a foaming adhesive to attach the magnet to a surface of the hole (see the abstract: “wherein the permanent magnet has a magnet-side flat surface that is formed as a rectangular flat surface, wherein the magnet insertion hole has, in an internal surface thereof, a hole-side flat surface that is formed as a flat surface facing the magnet-side flat surface, and wherein the adhesive is a foaming adhesive and is provided at least at four corners of the magnet-side flat surface, and a thickness of the adhesive at a center of the magnet-side flat surface is smaller than a thickness of the adhesive at the four corners.”)
To attach the magnet to an inner wall of the hole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the sheet is foamable.
Regarding claim 14, Horii discloses the rotating electric machine according to claim 8, wherein the sheet is foamable. (discussed regarding claim 7)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights