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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani (JP 2010098853 A) in view of Appenzeller (US 2,783,404 A) and Onimaru et al. (US 2008/0231138 A1, hereinafter Onimaru).
As to claim 1, Mitani shows (FIG. 1, 3, 4) A rotor 28 for an external rotor motor 10, comprising:
an annular stack 60 of steel sheets 58 fixed together;
permanent magnets 62 attached to an inner face of the stack 60;
a carrier 52,56 comprising a hub 56 for a shaft 14; and
brackets 64, which grip around an edge of the carrier 52,56 and press the carrier 52,56 against the stack 60 in its direction;
wherein the stack 60 has pressure application surfaces 68a between its axial ends, against which presses one end of the brackets 64, which faces away from the hub 56 (¶ 27; ¶ 29; ¶ 30; ¶ 33; ¶ 37, ¶ 50 clips 64 press on both radial sides of the core 60).
Mitani does not show:
The stack of steel sheets welded together; and
The brackets grip around a radially outer edge of the carrier.
As to the first bullet, Appenzeller shows a stack of laminae welded together (col. 2:25-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the stack 60 of Mitani to have the stack 60 of steel sheets welded together as taught by Appenzeller, for the advantageous benefits of a permanent bonding of the steel sheets into a unitary structure as taught by Appenzeller (col. 1:20-25, 64-66).
As to the second bullet, Onimaru shows holding members 33 grip around a radially outer edge of the clamping plate 32 (FIG. 3, 7 and ¶ 36; ¶ 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the stack 60 of Mitani in view of Appenzeller to have the brackets 64 grip around a radially outer edge of the carrier 52,56 as taught by Onimaru, for the advantageous benefit of stably holding the stack 60 to the carrier 52,56 as taught by Onimaru (¶ 47).
As to claim 2/1, Mitani in view of Appenzeller and Onimaru was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Mitani further shows wherein the pressure application surfaces 68a are surfaces of radial projections of the stack 60 (radial outer edges of the steel plates 58 ¶ 27; ¶ 50).
As to claim 4/2/1, Mitani in view of Appenzeller and Onimaru was discussed above with respect to claim 2, and Mitani further shows wherein the carrier 52,56 abuts against the outer face of the stack 60 and has slots 70 running in the axial direction in which the projections of the stack 60 are arranged (FIG. 1, ¶ 30).
As to claim 6/1, Mitani in view of Appenzeller and Onimaru was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Mitani further shows wherein the carrier 52,56 has an axial recess 70 in the axial direction on its radially outer edge, around which the brackets 64 engage, and the brackets 64 engage with this axial recess 70 (FIG. 1, 3, ¶ 30).
As to claim 8/1, Mitani in view of Appenzeller and Onimaru was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Mitani further shows (FIG. 4, 5):
PNG
media_image1.png
391
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the stack 60 has ribs RIB extending linearly in the axial direction on a radial outer surface, and the pressure application surfaces 68a extend in the circumferential direction from the ribs RIB.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani (JP 2010098853 A) in view of Appenzeller (US 2,783,404 A) and Onimaru et al. (US 2008/0231138 A1, hereinafter Onimaru) and Saban et al. (US 5,894,182 A, hereinafter Saban).
As to claim 5/1, Mitani in view of Appenzeller and Onimaru was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Mitani further shows the stack 60 is assembled from steel sheets 58 of identical design (¶ 27).
Mitani does not show a first group of consecutive sheets in the stacking direction is offset through an angle of rotation relative to a second group of consecutive sheets in the stacking direction, and the pressure application surfaces are thereby formed on the boundary between these two groups.
Saban shows a first group of consecutive sheets in the stacking direction is offset through an angle of rotation relative to a second group of consecutive sheets in the stacking direction (each lamination 28 is rotated col. 4:43 to 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the stack 60 of Mitani in view of Appenzeller and Onimaru to have a first group of consecutive sheets in the stacking direction is offset through an angle of rotation relative to a second group of consecutive sheets in the stacking direction, and the pressure application surfaces are thereby formed on the boundary between these two groups as taught by Saban, for the advantageous benefit of having the stack 60 has a straight right cylindrical form so that the rotor rotates without contacting a side of a stator as taught by Saban (col. 4:43 to 47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 9, 10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not show or suggest the features recited in claims 3, 7, 9 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mizukami (US 2023/0066950 A1) shows a rotor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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 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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights