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 .
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.
Claims 1, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kislev et al. (US 11,349,359 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kislev discloses a magnet carrier (200/900*) for carrying magnets in an outer rotor machine (Abstract; col. 39, lines 26-43), the magnet carrier comprising: an axis of rotation (1000); a hub portion (indicated around 1000 in annotated fig. 34B, below); a tapered portion (see annotated fig. 34B) extending radially outwardly from the hub portion, the tapered portion having an inner side (fig. 34B: bottom, i.e. concave side) and an outer side (top, i.e. convex side), and a radially outer region spaced from the hub portion; a flange portion (annotated fig. 34B) extending circumferentially from, and away from, the inner side of the tapered portion, the flange portion having a radially outwardly facing surface and a radially inwardly facing surface, the radially inwardly facing surface for supporting the magnets, and the flange portion having a proximal region and a distal region that are proximal and distal to the tapered portion respectively; and a curved corner portion (annotated fig. 34B) connecting the radially outer region of the tapered portion to the proximal region of the flange portion (figs. 34A-37; col. 39, lines 26-61); wherein each of the hub portion, the tapered portion, the corner portion and the flange portion of the magnet carrier are made of a carbon fibre that has been formed from stacked carbon fibre composite plies (“fibers (carbon…)… may be weaved together”: weaving naturally requires a plurality of plies that are stacked at least two layers thick), and each portion leads into the next portion in order to provide a continuous composite body of layered carbon fibre extending from the hub portion to the distal region of the flange portion (col. 39, lines 26-50; col. 41, lines 1-5 and 33-62).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
*NOTE: the cited magnet carrier is element (200) from Kislev, but is also inexplicably notated as element (900) in figures 34A-37. Though listed as (900) in the figures, the associated specification language is directed to element (200). Accordingly, it is reasonably held that both “200” and “900” are intended to be the same structure.
Regarding claim 16, Kislev discloses the magnet carrier of claim 1, wherein the carbon fibre composites are composed of a matrix material (col. 41, lines 50-52).
Regarding claim 17, Kislev discloses the magnet carrier of claim 16, wherein the matrix material is an epoxy (col. 41, lines 50-52).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kislev, in view of Goto (JP 2004-074471 A).
Regarding claim 3, Kislev discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kislev further discloses that the plies within the stack of plies forming the tapered portion are formed of weave [woven] carbon fibre composite plies (col. 41, lines 33-52). Kislev, however, does not explicitly disclose that the plies are formed of twill weave carbon fibre composite plies and are stacked in order to alternate between a 0/90 configuration and a +/-45 configuration.
Goto teaches that it is well known to provide a related product comprised of a carbon fibre composite (par. 0011 and 0013) wherein the plies are formed of twill weave carbon fibre composite plies and are stacked in order to alternate between a 0/90 configuration and a +/-45 configuration (pars. 0019-0020, 0025-0026).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Kislev to incorporate the preferred weaving and layup pattern of Goto. POSITA would have realized that layup patterns can be easily and readily oriented in different configurations in order to achieve the desired balance of strength, flexibility, durability and the like. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special twill or 0/90 and +/-45 configurations were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old magnet carrier of Kislev with the well-known twill and 0/90 and +/-45 orientation of Goto. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kislev, in view of Nagler (GB 2 296 997 A).
Regarding claim 4, Kislev discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kislev, however, does not explicitly disclose the stack of carbon fibre composite plies forming the flange portion comprises a first stack section of unidirectional plies in which the fibres of the unidirectional plies substantially align with the hoop direction of the flange portion.
Nagler teaches that it is well known to provide a similar magnet carrier (1) comprising: an axis of rotation (5); a hub portion (region directly surrounding axis (5)); a tapered portion (25); a flange portion (19/21) extending circumferentially from, and away from, the inner side of the tapered portion; and a curved corner portion (fig. 1: indicated at “1”) connecting the radially outer region of the tapered portion to the proximal region of the flange portion (figs. 1-2; pg. 10, lines 15-24); wherein the stack of carbon fibre composite plies forming the flange portion comprises a first stack section of unidirectional plies in which the fibres of the unidirectional plies *substantially align (aligned withing 5°) with the hoop direction of the flange portion (pg. 3, lines 8-10; pg. 7, lines 1-4).
*NOTE: the term “substantially align” is not being interpreted as indefinite, though it is broad. The Applicant has not provided guidelines or definition of what is or is not considered to “substantially align” and thus the language is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to intend something akin to +/-15° of direct alignment.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Kislev to incorporate the substantial alignment of the carbon fiber with the hop direction (i.e. circumferential direction) of Nagler. POSITA would have realized that carbon fiber weaves can be easily and readily oriented in different configurations in order to achieve the desired balance of strength, flexibility, durability and the like. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special weave or alignment was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old magnet carrier of Kislev with the well-known orientation of Nagler. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kislev in view of Nagler, further in view of Goto.
Regarding claim 5, Kislev in view of Nagler teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4. The modified Kislev, however, does not appear to teach that the first stack section of the stack of carbon fibre composite plies forming the flange portion is disposed between a second stack section and a third stack section, each of the second and third stack sections comprise twill weave carbon fibre composite plies stacked in order to alternate between a 0/90 configuration and a +/-45 configuration.
Goto teaches that it is well known to provide a related product comprised of a carbon fibre composite (par. 0011 and 0013) wherein the first stack section of the stack of carbon fibre composite plies forming the flange portion is disposed between a second stack section and a third stack section, each of the second and third stack sections comprise twill weave carbon fibre composite plies stacked in order to alternate between a 0/90 configuration and a +/-45 configuration (pars. 0019-0020, 0025-0026). Please refer to claim 3 above regarding the rationale for combination of references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued that the claimed “stacked carbon fibre composite plies” are not anticipated by the carbon fiber of Kislev, even where Kislev discloses that the fibers can be “weaved together”. Applicant states that “At best, this section [of Kislev] teaches carbon fiber weaved into form a sleeve or bandage. That sleeve would be single ply layer, not a (sic) stacked carbon fibre composite plies as now claimed. Given that the primary reference teaches using a single layer, the skilled artisan would not be motivated to add layers to Kislev as doing so could change weight distribution in a rotating machine and create unexpected operation therefrom.” Respectfully, the Examiner disagrees with this interpretation of Kislev and its associated argument. Specifically, it is not possible to weave materials in such a manner as to have only a single layer, the very nature of weaving requires a bare minimum of two overlapped layers (please see, e.g., the image from “textilelearner.net”, below). If there were not at least two layers overlapped, then the material by its very nature, would not be woven. If the Applicant’s issue is directed to the interpretation of the word “plies”, then it should be noted that the Applicant has not provided any special definition in the original disclosure of the term “plies”, which is accordingly given its plain and common meaning. The first and thus most common and accepted definition from Merriam-Webster states that the noun form of “ply” (singular form of plies) is “one of several layers (as of cloth) usually sewn or laminated together” (emphasis added). As such, when one weaves, one must use a plurality of layers (i.e. plies) which must be overlapped, and thus are necessarily stacked at least where they overlap.
PNG
media_image2.png
332
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant continues by arguing the purported benefits of the instant invention, stating: “A noted advantage of the claimed layered carbon fibre plies is that having layers allows for different orientations of the fibers and, thus, the "high tensile strength and elastic modulus can be utilised in many directions" (see paragraph [0052]).” While the supposed merits of the invention do not actually constitute an evidentiary argument, it is important to note that the very nature of weaving is such that it must necessarily require the argued “different orientations of the fibers”. As such, the woven carbon fiber of Kislev not only anticipates the actually recited structural limitations, but also the purported benefits.
Applicant subsequently asserts that “amended claim l requires that "each of the hub portion, the tapered portion, the corner portion and the flange portion of the magnet carrier are made of a carbon fibre that has been formed from stacked carbon fibre composite plies, and each portion leads into the next portion in order to provide a continuous composite body of layered carbon fibre extending from the hub portion to the distal region of the flange portion."
PNG
media_image1.png
479
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The rotor in Kislev seems to be made of two parts, namely the rotor base 904 and the sleeve 908. However, these is no teaching that the cylindrical core is also part of the continuous element.” This argument is also not found to be compelling. This is because the argument imports limitations into the claim though they are not actually recited. Though the claim does require that the “hub portion, the tapered portion, the corner portion and the flange portion… are made of a carbon fibre… and each portion leads into the next portion in order to provide a continuous composite body” this is not the same as being one single integral piece as is implicit in the applicant’s argument. It is clear in the annotated fig. 34B of Kislev (reproduced below) that the cited hub portion, the tapered portion, the corner portion and the flange portion are part of a continuous body and are not disconnected from one another. In fact, Kislev repeatedly discloses that the elements 904 and 908 are “attached” (see, e.g., col 41, liens 27-28). Perhaps much more importantly, Kislev explicitly discloses that: “the sleeve 908 and the rotor base 904 may be a single integrated part” (col. 41, lines 60-62). Accordingly, the limitation as actually currently claimed is found to be anticipated, and the limitation as argued is also shown to be anticipated as the sleeve (908) which comprises the flange portion, and the rotor base (904), which comprises the hub portion, the tapered portion, and the corner portion are expressly disclosed by Kislev as being “a single integrated part”.
Finally, Applicant has provided a series of assertions as to the purported advantages of the claimed product based upon the method in which it may have been manufactured. Respectfully, the allowability or patentable weight of a product does not depend upon its method of manufacture, and as currently claimed there is no distinction between the structures of the claimed invention and those of the prior art.
According to the prior art rejections above, and the response to arguments herein, it is held that all of the currently presented claim limitations have been properly shown to be anticipated or taught by the prior art and all arguments on the merits have been answered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Tangadu et al. (US 11,851,196 B2) which discloses the magnet carrier having been formed of carbon fiber plies in a matrix material (col. 12, lines 58-66).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights