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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed March 4, 2025, a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/JP2022/033753, including the preliminary amendment to the specification and the replacement drawing sheets filed therewith. Claims 1–10 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1–4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 contain allowable subject matter, as set forth below. The drawings and the specification are objected to. This action is non-final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Objection 1 — cooling oil flow passage (claim 5) not depicted. Claim 5 recites “the housing includes a cooling oil flow passage for returning cooling oil that has flowed into the air flow passage, into the housing.” The cooling oil flow passage is not depicted or labeled in any figure of record; paragraph [0020] of the specification states that it is not illustrated. Corrected drawings depicting and labeling this element are required.
Objection 2 — gear (claim 6) not depicted. Claim 6 recites “a gear provided outside the rotating electric machine.” The gear is not depicted or labeled in any figure of record; paragraph [0012] of the specification states that it is not illustrated. Corrected drawings depicting and labeling this element are required.
Objection 3 — inlet on a side surface of the shaft or the rotor core (claim 9) not depicted. Claim 9 recites “an inlet of the air flow passage is formed on a side surface of the shaft or the rotor core.” Neither alternative is depicted in any figure of record; every figure of record shows air entering shaft flow passage 6a at the end of shaft 6. Corrected drawings depicting and labeling this element are required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0022] recites “since a groove 13 is created as long as the stator core 3 is for by welding,” which appears to contain a typographical error.
Paragraph [0023] recites “without causing an iron low,” which appears to be a typographical error for “iron loss.”
Paragraph [0023] states that the pump 7 may be provided on a radially outer side of the rotor core 2 “as illustrated in Fig. 6,” whereas FIGS. 6A and 6B depict the pump 7 at the axial end of the shaft 6.
Paragraph [0026] recites “In a case where the rotor is provided in the pump 7,” which reverses the disclosed relationship between the rotor and the pump 7.
Paragraph [0026] identifies element 14 as a “second air flow passage,” whereas paragraphs [0038] and [0040] identify element 14 as a “second radial direction flow passage.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1–10 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.
Claim 1 recites “the housing forms an air flow passage between the rotor and the stator.” The only space between the rotor and the stator disclosed or claimed is the air gap, which claim 1 separately recites as “an air gap that is a predetermined space.” The disclosed air flow passage 4a, however, lies radially outside the stator core 3 and extends along the outer and end walls of the housing 4 to the end of the shaft 6 (FIGS. 1, 2, 4, and 7). It is therefore unclear whether the claimed air flow passage is located radially between the rotor and the stator, is coextensive with the air gap, or is a passage elsewhere in the housing. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as an air flow passage formed by the housing that communicates with the shaft flow passage.
Claim 6 recites “a gear provided outside the rotating electric machine” and defines the positions of the first and second flow passage holes relative to that gear. It is unclear whether the gear is a positively recited element of the claimed rotating electric machine, and because the gear is outside the claimed machine, the locations of the holes depend on how the machine is installed. It is further unclear whether “a second flow passage hole” is one of the recited “plurality of flow passage holes formed on a radially outer side in the housing” or a separate hole.
Claim 9 recites “an inlet of the air flow passage is formed on a side surface of the shaft or the rotor core.” Claim 1 recites that the housing forms the air flow passage, and it is unclear how an inlet of a passage formed by the housing is formed on a surface of the shaft or the rotor core. Paragraph [0020] of the specification contrasts the side-surface inlet with an inlet at the end of the shaft, suggesting that the limitation refers to the shaft flow passage rather than the air flow passage..
Claims 2–10 depend from claim 1, do not cure its deficiency, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahr (US 2021/0083555 A1) in view of Yamada (JP H11-18367 A; citations are to the machine translation of record) and further in view of Yamagishi (US 2018/0375395 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lahr teaches A rotating electric machine(electric motor 100a; ¶[0045]; FIG. 2) comprising:
a rotor including a rotor core(rotor 120a; ¶[0047]; FIG. 2) formed of multiple circular laminations(¶[0047]; FIG. 2; the lamination material is addressed below)
and a shaft that supports the rotor core(rotor shaft 140a, to which rotor 120a is connected and about which it rotates; ¶¶[0047], [0049]; FIG. 2);
a stator that faces the rotor via an air gap that is a predetermined space, on a radially outer side of the rotor(stator 110a with rotor 120a disposed within it and separated from it by airgap 130 of less than 1 mm; ¶¶[0044], [0046], [0048]; FIG. 2);
the shaft includes a shaft flow passage(hollow airway 142 extending along axis of rotation 152 within rotor shaft 140a; ¶[0049]; FIG. 2);
the rotor includes a pump that is coupled to the shaft and is synchronized with rotation of the shaft(air pump 160a, a centrifugal fan with blades 162 disposed in rotor 120a on rotor shaft 140a and driven by rotation of rotor 120a; ¶¶[0047], [0050], [0054]; FIGS. 2–3)
and a radial direction flow passage that communicates the shaft flow passage with the air gap(rotor air lines 122a, aligned with rotor shaft air lines 144a and air inlets 146, together with the passages between centrifugal blades 162 of air pump 160a, conveying air 70 from airway 142 radially outward into airgap 130; ¶¶[0049]–[0050], [0054]; FIGS. 2–3).
Lahr does not explicitly teach a housing that houses the rotor and the stator, wherein the housing forms an air flow passage between the rotor and the stator and the shaft flow passage communicates with the air flow passage, because Lahr's figures are schematic cross-sections of the stator, rotor, and shaft only, and Lahr draws air 70 into airway 142 through passage 182 of open cap 180a at the end of the shaft(¶¶[0045], [0052]; FIG. 2). Lahr also does not explicitly teach that its rotor laminations are electromagnetic steel plates, because Lahr does not identify the lamination material(¶[0047]).
However, in the analogous art of cooling rotating electric machines, Yamada teaches a motor(¶[0010]; FIG. 1) comprising a housing that houses the rotor and the stator(frame 1 within which main shaft 2, rotor 3, and stator 4 are provided; ¶¶[0010], [0014]; FIG. 1), wherein the housing forms an air flow passage between the rotor and the stator(frame ventilation passage 8 formed between stator 4 and frame 1 and connecting end spaces 11, 12 at the axial ends of rotor 3 and stator 4; ¶¶[0010]–[0011], [0016]; FIG. 1), and wherein the shaft includes a shaft flow passage that communicates with the air flow passage(shaft hole 20 formed along the axis of main shaft 2 and communicating with frame ventilation passage 8 through upper core chamber 12 and flow hole 23; ¶¶[0015], [0017]; FIG. 1).
Lahr and Yamada are both directed to rotating electric machines in which rotation of the rotor drives a cooling gas through a bore of the shaft and outward through the rotor (Lahr ¶¶[0049]–[0050], [0053]; Yamada ¶¶[0012], [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house Lahr's stator and rotor within a frame and to supply Lahr's airway 142 from a frame-formed air passage as taught by Yamada, in order to circulate the cooling air in a closed loop within the frame, in which the air is cooled through the frame and cools both the rotor and the stator coil without a separate return channel outside the shaft (Yamada ¶¶[0011], [0018]–[0019]). Applying Yamada's known frame-side circulation passage to Lahr's shaft-fed air pump would have yielded the predictable result of a housed machine whose rotor pump draws its air from the housing passage.
Further, in the analogous art of rotor cores for rotating electrical machines, Yamagishi teaches a rotor core configured by laminating a plurality of electromagnetic steel plates(rotor core 10 formed by laminating magnetic steel sheets 12, also called electromagnetic steel sheets; ¶¶[0004], [0032]; FIG. 1A). Lahr and Yamagishi are both directed to drive motors for electric vehicles (Lahr ¶¶[0001], [0044]; Yamagishi ¶[0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Lahr's circular rotor laminations of electromagnetic steel sheets as taught by Yamagishi, because Yamagishi identifies laminated electromagnetic steel sheets as the conventional construction of a rotor core (Yamagishi ¶[0004]), and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.07. The combination applies known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 2/1, Lahr in view of Yamada and Yamagishi teaches the rotating electric machine of claim 1.
Lahr further teaches wherein the pump is arranged to be sandwiched between the plurality of electromagnetic steel plates(air pump 160a positioned approximately midway in rotor 120a between the two stacks of rotor laminations; ¶[0050]; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 3/1, Lahr in view of Yamada and Yamagishi teaches the rotating electric machine of claim 1.
Lahr further teaches wherein the shaft flow passage is formed from an end of the shaft to a position of the radial direction flow passage in an axial direction(airway 142 extending from the end of rotor shaft 140a at open cap 180a to air inlets 146 at rotor shaft air lines 144a and rotor air lines 122a, with fluid dam 150 adjacent the air inlets; ¶¶[0049], [0052]; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 4/1, Lahr in view of Yamada and Yamagishi teaches the rotating electric machine of claim 1.
Lahr further teaches wherein the radial direction flow passage is formed at a position at an axial center of the rotor core(air pump 160a and rotor air lines 122a positioned approximately midway in rotor 120a along axis of rotation 152, so that air enters the middle of airgap 130 and forces fluid out both ends; ¶[0050]; FIG. 2; rotor air lines 122b likewise midway, ¶[0056]; FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 10/1, Lahr in view of Yamada and Yamagishi teaches the rotating electric machine of claim 1.
Lahr further teaches, in electric motor 100e, which retains air pump 160a and rotor air lines 122a in rotor 120a(¶[0071]; FIG. 7), wherein the stator includes a second radial direction flow passage formed in correspondence with positions of the pump and the radial direction flow passage(stator air lines 112 carrying air to airgap 130 and opening radially into the airgap approximately midway along the stator, adjacent the axial position of air pump 160a and rotor air lines 122a; ¶¶[0065], [0071]; FIG. 7).
One would be motivated to provide stator air lines 112 in order to increase the amount of air pushed into the airgap, displace the fluid at a higher rate, and increase cooling of the stator(¶[0072]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahr (US 2021/0083555 A1) in view of Yamada (JP H11-18367 A) and Yamagishi (US 2018/0375395 A1), and further in view of Takenaka (JP 2009022145 A; citations are to the machine translation of record).
Regarding claim 7/1, Lahr in view of Yamada and Yamagishi teaches the rotating electric machine of claim 1.
Lahr is silent wherein the air flow passage is formed by a groove of the stator, because Lahr does not describe the outer periphery of stator 110a(¶[0046]; FIG. 2), and Yamada forms frame ventilation passage 8 within axially extending protrusions 7 of frame 1 (Yamada ¶¶[0004], [0014], [0016]; FIG. 2).
However, in the analogous art of cooling structures for rotating electric machines, Takenaka teaches wherein the air flow passage is formed by a positioning groove or a welding groove included in the stator(welding grooves wh recessed in the outer diameter surface of stator core SC, forming axial coolant flow paths along the outer diameter surface of stator core SC, which contacts the inner diameter surface of case MC; ¶¶[0010], [0016], [0028], [0038]; FIGS. 2, 3(a)).
One would be motivated to form Yamada's frame-side passage with the welding grooves of the stator core as taught by Takenaka in order to use functional parts already provided for another purpose as the flow channel, without forming extra grooves, thereby avoiding added cost and weight (Takenaka ¶¶[0011], [0016]).
Takenaka and Yamada are both directed to cooling a stator by a fluid passage formed between the stator core and the surrounding case or frame (Takenaka ¶[0001]; Yamada ¶¶[0011], [0016]). Substituting Takenaka's known stator-groove passage for Yamada's frame-protrusion passage would have yielded the predictable result of an axial air passage along the stator outer periphery. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 5/1: The closest prior art of record, Lahr (US 2021/0083555 A1), Yamada (JP H11-18367 A), Yamagishi (US 2018/0375395 A1), and Takenaka (JP 2009022145 A), does not teach or render obvious “the housing includes a cooling oil flow passage for returning cooling oil that has flowed into the air flow passage, into the housing” in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 6/1: The closest prior art of record, Lahr, Yamada, Yamagishi, and Takenaka, does not teach or render obvious “a first flow passage hole that communicates with the air flow passage and is formed on a side closer to a gear provided outside the rotating electric machine, among a plurality of flow passage holes formed on a radially outer side in the housing, and a second flow passage hole that is formed on a side farther from the gear than the first flow passage hole have different sizes” in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 8/1: The closest prior art of record, Lahr, Yamada, Yamagishi, and Takenaka, does not teach or render obvious “the pump is formed by laminating the electromagnetic steel plates or formed by mixing a resin and a powder magnetic core” in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claim 9/1: The closest prior art of record, Lahr, Yamada, Yamagishi, and Takenaka, does not teach or render obvious “an inlet of the air flow passage is formed on a side surface of the shaft or the rotor core” in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Conclusion
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