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 Interpretation
Claims 1-4 are directed to a motor frame. The recitations of the motor, the rotating shaft, the stator, the stator segments and their teeth (claim 1), the insulator, the printed circuit board, the pin, and the protrusion of the printed circuit board (claim 3), and the recesses formed in the stator segments (claim 4) describe articles with which the claimed motor frame is intended to be used; these articles are not positively recited as elements of the claimed frame. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art; further, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2114 and 2115; In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1935). Accordingly, limitations such as "configured to come into contact with center portions of the stator segments" (claim 1) and "into which the protrusion is insertable" (claim 3) are met by prior art frame structure that is capable of such use. Claim 5 positively recites the motor, and the recitations directed to the motor and the stator segments are given full patentable weight in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horiuchi(US 2021/0203198 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Horiuchi teaches a motor frame(¶[0040]-[0041]; FIGS. 1A, 4; frame 1),
comprising: a tubular body including a hole penetrating the tubular body in an extension direction of an axis of a rotating shaft of a motor(¶[0041], [0055]; FIG. 4; frame 1, circular inner periphery, armature core AC inserted along rotation axis Z),
the motor including a stator configured to be fitted into the tubular body(¶[0042]; core AC fixed in frame 1 by press fit, shrinkage fit, or adhesive),
wherein: the stator of the motor includes a plurality of stator segments obtained by dividing the stator in a circumferential direction of the rotating shaft, each of the stator segments including a tooth extending toward the rotating shaft(¶[0059], [0067]; FIG. 3; core AC with twelve magnetic poles MP; article worked upon, see Claim Interpretation above),
the tubular body includes: four outer wall surfaces disposed to surround the rotating shaft and each having a planar shape along the rotating shaft(¶[0055], [0057]; FIG. 4; square outer periphery, planar sides A-D);
and an inner wall surface surrounding the rotating shaft and having a cylindrical inner surface shape along the rotating shaft(¶[0034], [0041]; FIG. 4; circular inner periphery along axis Z),
Horiuchi further teaches a thickness of the tubular body in an internal-external direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the axis is defined as a wall thickness t (mm)(definition applicable to the tubular body of Horiuchi),
an angle with respect to a reference line around the axis at any point of the tubular body when the tubular body is viewed in the extension direction of the axis is defined as an angle θ (rad)(definition applicable to the tubular body of Horiuchi),
and, when a thickness function is defined as t = f (θ), a portion of the inner wall surface, the portion being positioned at the angle at which a minimum value of a waveform of a quartic component resulting from Fourier series expansion of the thickness function is obtained, is a center contact portion configured to come into contact with center portions of the stator segments in the circumferential direction of the rotating shaft(¶[0042], [0055]; FIG. 4; wall-center portions of the circular inner periphery of frame 1, in contact with the fitted core). The square outer periphery and circular inner periphery of frame 1 necessarily give the wall thickness t = f (θ) fourfold symmetry, with minima of its quartic component at the four flat-wall centers where the wall is thinnest (applicant’s specification as filed, ¶[0049]; MPEP 2112; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977)); the recited contact with the stator segments is addressed under MPEP 2114-2115 in the Claim Interpretation above.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (US 2021/0203198 A1) in view of Yamagishi (US 2015/0137654 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Horiuchi teaches the motor frame of claim 1.
Horiuchi does not explicitly teach the tubular body further includes four joint portions each positioned between adjacent outer wall surfaces of the four outer wall surfaces, and, in each of the four joint portions, a groove extending parallel to the axis and recessed in an arch shape toward the axis is formed.
Hoever, Yamagishi teaches a rotating electric machine having an approximately square tubular frame with a circular fit-in hole formed through it in the axial direction, into which a stator core is fixed by shrinkage fit or bonding (¶[0013]; FIG. 1; frame 22, fit-in hole 22a, stator core 23). Yamagishi teaches four joint portions each positioned between adjacent outer wall surfaces(¶[0028]; FIGS. 3B, 6; four corners of frame 22), and, in each of the four joint portions, a groove extending parallel to the axis(¶[0016], [0028]; FIGS. 3B, 6; claim 10 of Yamagishi; recessed parts 32 in all four corners, along the entire axial direction of frame 22) and recessed in an arch shape toward the axis(FIGS. 3B, 6; concave arcuate profile of recessed parts 32, relied upon as shown in the figures).
Horiuchi and Yamagishi are analogous art because both are directed to the same field of endeavor: rotating electric machines having a square tubular frame into which a stator core is fixed. 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 frame of Horiuchi by forming, in each of the four joint portions between its adjacent outer wall surfaces, a groove extending parallel to the axis and recessed in an arch shape toward the axis, as taught by Yamagishi. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to avoid interference with the mounting bolts that fix the machine to the device main body that is the driven object (Yamagishi ¶[0015]-[0016], [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Horiuchi teaches the motor frame of claim 1.
The recitations the motor includes: an insulator configured to be attached to the stator; and a printed circuit board configured to be attached to the insulator, with the printed circuit board positioned by a pin formed on the insulator, and including a protrusion protruding toward a direction opposite to the rotating shaft are directed to articles worked upon (see Claim Interpretation above).
Horiuchi does not explicitly teach in the motor frame, a recess or an opening into which the protrusion is insertable is formed; Horiuchi is silent as to frame features apart from the core-receiving bore.
However, Yamagishi teaches a rotating electric machine having an approximately square tubular frame with a circular fit-in hole formed through it in the axial direction, into which a stator core is fixed by shrinkage fit or bonding (¶[0013]; FIG. 1; frame 22, fit-in hole 22a, stator core 23). Yamagishi teaches, in the motor frame, a recess or an opening(¶[0014], [0016]; FIGS. 1, 3B; assembling bolt holes 31 formed through frame 22 along the axial direction; recessed parts 32 in corner portions) into which the protrusion is insertable(¶[0014]; bolt holes 31 receiving the inserted assembling bolts 26, and thus dimensioned to receive an inserted protrusion).
Horiuchi and Yamagishi are analogous art because both are directed to the same field of endeavor: rotating electric machines having a square tubular frame into which a stator core is fixed. 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 frame of Horiuchi by forming therein a recess or an opening, such as the bolt holes and corner recessed parts taught by Yamagishi. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to permit the machine to be assembled as one fixed unit by bolts passed through the frame and to avoid interference with mounting bolts when fixing the machine to the driven device (Yamagishi ¶[0014]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Horiuchi teaches the motor frame of claim 1.
Horiuchi does not explicitly teach a plurality of protrusions is formed on the inner wall surface of the tubular body; the inner periphery of frame 1 is a plain circular surface fixed to the core by press fit dimensions or adhesive (¶[0042]).
However, Yamagishi teaches a rotating electric machine having an approximately square tubular frame with a circular fit-in hole formed through it in the axial direction, into which a stator core is fixed by shrinkage fit or bonding (¶[0013]; FIG. 1; frame 22, fit-in hole 22a, stator core 23).
Yamagishi teaches a plurality of protrusions is formed on the inner wall surface of the tubular body(¶[0023], [0028]; FIGS. 1, 3B, 4; bulged linear parts 33 extending linearly in the axial direction on the inner peripheral surface of frame 22, at intervals of 90 degrees at four places),
and in the stator segments, recesses are formed, each of the recesses allowing a corresponding one of the protrusions to be fitted into the recess(¶[0023]; FIGS. 3B, 4; groove parts 34 on the outer peripheral surface of stator core 23, fitted on the bulged linear parts 33; the recesses of the stator segments are directed to the article worked upon, see Claim Interpretation above).
Horiuchi and Yamagishi are analogous art because both are directed to the same field of endeavor: rotating electric machines having a square tubular frame into which a stator core is fixed. 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 frame of Horiuchi by forming a plurality of bulged linear parts extending in the axial direction on its inner peripheral surface, fitted into corresponding groove parts of the stator core fitted therein, as taught by Yamagishi. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to prevent idling of the stator core in the frame by engagement of the bulged linear parts with the groove parts even when strong reaction torque is produced, to permit ready assembly by aligning the circumferential positions of each bulged linear part and groove part, and to eliminate the dedicated whirl-stopping pin and its drilled-hole machining and pin press-fitting processes (Yamagishi ¶[0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 8/7/5/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “when a thickness function is defined as t = f (θ), a portion of the inner wall surface, the portion being positioned at the angle at which a minimum value of a waveform of a quartic component resulting from Fourier series expansion of the thickness function is obtained, is a center contact portion configured to come into contact with center portions of the stator segments in the circumferential direction of the rotating shaft”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Takiguchi(JP 2011-239626 A) teaches a rotating electric machine having a stator core composed of circumferentially divided tooth blocks shrink-fitted into a cylindrical frame, with a connecting member abutting gradient surfaces of the teeth to maintain circumferential tooth-tip pitch and suppress cogging.
Matsushita(JP 2015-061385 A) teaches a motor case having a cylindrical housing portion in which convex portions extending radially inward, formed by pressing the case with a die, engage outer peripheral recesses of stacked divided core blocks to prevent the stator core from coming off the case and from rotating relative to the case.
Yamaguchi(US 2008/0106164 A1) teaches a frame having an approximately square outer cross-section and a cylindrical inner circumference heat-shrink fitted onto a stator core, Fourier series expansion of the frame thickness T(θ) including the fourth-order component thereof, and stress-relieving spaces arranged without 90-degree rotational symmetry so as to suppress the fourth-order and pole-order thickness components and thereby reduce cogging torque.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 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 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://pairdirect. 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).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights