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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement, mailed 07/18/2024, was made final in the Non-Final Rejection, mailed 02/20/2025. That finality was proper and is hereby maintained.
The Applicant did not timely file a petition challenging the propriety of the holding of Lack of Unity. The period for filing a petition has expired and is no longer an option for the Applicant. Please refer to MPEP Patent Rule 1.129 for more information, a portion of which is quoted below, the applicant may:
(iii) File a petition under this section traversing the requirement. If the required petition is filed in a timely manner, the original time period for electing and paying the fee set forth in § 1.17(s) will be deferred and any decision on the petition affirming or modifying the requirement will set a new time period to elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined and to pay the fee set forth in § 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in excess of one which applicant elects.
As a courtesy, the Examiner has considered rejoinder. However, the claims are directed to a method of manufacture (claim 1) and a product (claim 19). Applicant has asserted that “Claim 1 as amended requires all the limitations of claim 19”. Respectfully, this is not the case. Claim 1 is a method and requires a step of providing a support structure and a step of fabricating a first layer of flux carrier material on the support structure. Neither of these steps or structural limitations are required or even implicit in claim 19. Additionally, claim 19 is a product, and not a method, and requires a rotor core fixed relative to a shaft. The method of claim 1 does not require a rotor core fixed to a shaft. Accordingly, there remains two-way distinctness between the inventions, which are therefore not currently found to be eligible for rejoinder.
An Office Action on the merits of claims 19-20 now follows.
Claim Status
In response to a preliminary amendment filed 9/21/2023,
claims 1 & 19 have been amended
claims 2, 5, 7-10, 16-18, 21, 24-26, 28, 30, & 32 have been cancelled
claims 1, 3-4, 6, 11-15, 22-23, 27, 29, 31, & 33 have been withdrawn; and
claims 19-20 are pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/18/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 that claim 19 specifies the alternating layer of flux barrier and flux carrier materials extend parallel to the longitudinal axis and that Papini discloses the laminations of the rotor extending transversally relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft.
Respectfully, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as the Applicant may have misunderstood Papini’s teachings. While Papini discloses laminations of the rotor extending transversally relative to the longitudinal axis, Papini also discloses alternating flux barrier/carrier materials that extend parallel to the longitudinal axis. The laminations are not the structure mapped as the barrier/carrier materials. As depicted in annotated FIG. 14 below, though of a different embodiment but similarly identical structure, the flux barrier/carrier materials extend parallel to the longitudinal axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
613
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues on page 8-9 that Papini does not teach the flux barrier material being additively manufactured. Furthermore, Applicant points out that elements 44 & 46 [used to map as the flux barrier material in the Non-Final filed 02/20/2025] corresponds to an opening, not the layers of flux barrier material that are fabricated using additive manufacturing.
Regarding the additive manufactured limitation, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims can be limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from the patented electric machine of Papini. See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding the mapping for flux barrier material, Papini discloses the flux barrier gap 44 & 46 being filled in either a permanent magnet or a non-ferromagnetic material, being positioned in the same location. As such, the limitation has been remapped for clarity as permanent magnets 24 and/or non-ferromagnetic material, as detailed below in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103, infra.
For the reasons explained above, amended claim 19 is rejected. Furthermore, being that claim 20 is dependent on claim 19, claims 20 is rejected as well.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papini et al (U.S. Patent Publication 10256708 B2) hereinafter Papini, and further in view of Buttner et al (U.S. Patent Publication 10153670 B2) hereinafter Buttner.
Regarding claim 19, Papini discloses (Title: Electric Machine) a rotor for a Synchronous Reluctance Motor (SynRM) (synchronous electric machine, col. 3, ll. 18-19), comprising:
- a shaft (rotating shaft 22, col. 4, ll. 12) extending along a longitudinal axis (central axis 34, col. 4, ll. 37); and
- a rotor core (rotor 14, col. 3, ll. 57) fixed relative to the shaft, said rotor core comprising alternating continuous layers of flux barrier (permanent magnet 24, col. 4, ll. 24-25, “each of the plurality of flux barriers includes a permanent magnet 24 positioned therein”; col. 9, ll. 15-19, “a non-ferromagnetic material positioned within an entirety of each of the plurality of flux barriers”) and flux carrier material (rotor 14) fabricated via additive manufacturing (additive manufacturing process, col. 4, ll. 10-11), wherein the alternating layers extend parallel to the longitudinal axis and alternate between flux barrier and flux carrier material along a radial direction relative to the shaft (refer to “Response to Argument” section, supra, regarding how FIG. 14 depicts alternating layers of flux barrier/carrier material extend parallel to the longitudinal axis),
further wherein each layer of flux barrier material has a radial thickness and extends along its thickness to provide a separation between layers of flux carrier material (FIG. 4 below depicts flux gap 44/46 [filled with either a permanent magnet 24 or non-ferromagnetic material] having thickness in the radial direction [perpendicular to central axis 34] extending, providing separation between flux carrier material layers [rotor 14 layers]).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Papini fails to disclose wherein each layer of flux barrier material has a radial thickness and extends continuously and uninterrupted along its thickness to provide a separation between layers of flux carrier material.
Buttner discloses (Reluctance Rotor Having an Additional Inherent Magnetization) a rotor (rotor 10, col. 7, ll. 22) wherein each layer of flux barrier material (rods 34, col. 8, ll. 9) has a radial thickness (width of rods 34, depicted in FIG. 2) and extends continuously and uninterrupted along its thickness to provide a separation between layers of flux carrier material (col. 7, ll. 47-51, “Thus only flux-conducting portions 24 and optional webs 26 for mechanical connection of the flux-conducting portions 24 as well as optionally an outer ring 28 for mechanical connection of the flux-conducting portions 24 of the rotor plate are present”).
PNG
media_image3.png
556
499
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Papini discloses a rotor for synchronous reluctance motor comprising elements such as the shaft and rotor core, further comprising alternating continuous layers of flux barrier and flux carrier material. Buttner also discloses a rotor wherein webs and outer rings/caps are optionally present in final product. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to remove the bridges, webs, outer rings, and/or caps that physically connect layers of carrier material, taught by Buttner, and implement the physical structure into Papini as it is known to improve magnetic performance by reducing flux leakage, create greater flux strengths via directing flux concentrations, and reduce manufacturing costs through a reduction of weight/material usage.
Regarding claim 20, Papini in view of Buttner further teaches the rotor according to claim 19, and Papini further discloses wherein the rotor core comprises a body (rotor 14) defined via the flux carrier material, said body comprising a plurality of flux barriers (flux barriers 44 & 46) extending therethrough for defining magnetic flux paths, said flux barriers being defined via the flux barrier material (col. 4, ll. 30-32, “the permanent magnets 24 may instead be positioned at any other suitable location within the flux barriers, or alternatively, no permanent magnets 24 may be positioned in the flux barriers (see, e.g., the synchronous reluctance machine of FIG. 4)”; col. 9, ll. 19-24, “the electric machine may simply include air within each of the plurality of flux barriers. Accordingly, for the embodiment of FIG. 4, the electric machine may be configured as a synchronous reluctance machine, or a synchronous reluctance electric motor 10”).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 19, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 20 in the manner of providing a continuous and uninterrupted flux barrier).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights