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 .
Response to Amendment
That the amendment to the claim languages filed on 2/2/26 has been fully considered and made of record. Claims 1-5, 7 and newly added claims 8-12 are now pending of record.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-5, 7-12 as follows:
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 following title is suggested: - Assembling Process for Rotor of a variable-reluctance synchronous motor”--
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because throughout the abstract, the abstract recites the terms "comprising or comprises", which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the terms with the term --has or having--, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-5, 7-12 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.
many terms and/or phrases are unclear and confusing is/are still existed in the pending claims 1-5, 7-12, the following are examples:
claim 1, regarding, “wherein each lamination in the plurality of laminations include multiple polar sectors” (claim 1, line 7-8) do not agree with that in claim 1, line 4-5.
“a total depth of the rotor” (claim 1, about lines 17-18) is vague and indefinite since the rotor has not been obtained at this point of time. It appears that this directed to “ a predetermined total depth for the rotor”.
“the through-cavities” (claim 1, line 24) lacks proper antecedent basis. Please be more specific to exactly where the through-cavities is/are from what structure related.
“so as one of the plurality magnets”(claim 1, line 24) should be changed to:--”so that a magnet of the plurality magnets”--, for clarity of the method claims.
“wherein the plurality of magnets are inserted into each of the through-cavities in each of the laminations”(claim 1, lines 28-29) is redundant of lines 23-25 of the inserting step.
“each polar sector has a plurality of through-cavities that include the at least one through cavity” (claim 2, line 3-4) is unclear and confusing, this appears to be redundant of claim 1, line 4-5. The use of: – “wherein each polar sector further includes more than one through-cavities”--.
“are arranged” (claim 3, line 3) not positive method limitation, the use of: -- “arranging the magnets symmetrically with the axis of rotation”—
“each disc”(claim 3, line 4) is vague and indefinite.
Claim 4 is a redundant of claim 1, lines 13-14, also the terms equal depth does not agree with that in claim 1, line 13-14. Please be consistent though out.
Claim 5 is not understood, in that it is not known as to exactly number of polar sector applicant intent to claim for the pending method.
claim 7 directed to a shape of the magnet which does not further limit the method since no method inventive feature thereto.
Claim 8 directed to structural element without any positive method feature existed therefrom. Also, “ each disc “ (claim 8, line 1) is vague and indefinite.
“are positioned”(claim 9, line 2) is not positive method inventive step. Also, it is not known what being referring to as “bridges” (see claim 9, line 2) since nothing cited in the base claim 1 in referering to this term.
“wherein there are four laminations in the plurality of laminations”(claim 10, line 2-3) should be directed to claim 1, line 3 the use of :--“wherein the providing of the plurality laminations includes four laminations”--
scope of the newly added claims 11-12 is not clearly , since claims 11-12 clearly directed to method invention (see claim 11 preamble) and claim recites structure elements of the rotor rather than the making of the rotor (e.g., wherein the rotor includes: the plurality of laminations, wherein each of the laminations in the plurality of laminations have an inner through-cavity and an outer through-cavity in each of at least four polar sections; and the plurality of magnets that extend through the inner through-cavities and the outer through-cavities in each of the plurality of laminations, wherein each magnet in the plurality of magnets extends through a different through-cavity included in each of the plurality of laminations” (claim 11, lines 5-12) which made scope of the claim unclear. It is suggested to rewrite above terms/phrases into positive method limitations to include similar inventive method features as in independent claim 1 formats, respectively.
Further, it is not known as to how the inserting can be practiced at the time since claim 11 is lacking of preparing and/or providing of the laminations as well as the magnets prior to “inserting” of claim 11, line 3. Therefore, claim 11 considered to be incomplete.
whether or not “there are four laminations” (claim 12, line 2) is as same as “sequential laminations“ of claim 11, line 4 ? please be more consistent.
Further, it is also suggested that Applicant should carefully revise and correct other typos in the claims which was not listed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirani et al (20130026872) in view of Hattori et al (20140021820).
Cirani et al discloses the claimed process for assembling a rotor of a variable-reluctance synchronous motor, comprising:
providing a plurality of laminations 140, wherein each lamination in the plurality of laminations has at least one through-cavity for each polar sector for housing at least a magnet 50/52 (see Figs. 1, 11 and discussed in ¶¶ [0010, 0031];
wherein each lamination in the plurality of laminations include multiple polar sectors 44a-b (see Figs. 1-2);
aligning the through-cavities in the plurality of laminations in sequence along an axis of rotation 100 such that said through-cavities are arranged in a parallel direction to said axis of rotation 100 (see Figs. 1, 11 and discussed in ¶ [0055];
providing a plurality of magnets 50/52 that each have an identical predefined depth wherein said predefined depth of each magnet in the plurality of magnets being smaller than a total depth of the rotor 40 (see Fig. 1);
Cirani et al however is in silent, regarding, “wherein the plurality of laminations have equal depths” and “inserting the plurality of magnets in the through-cavities so as one of the plurality of magnets to mates with each of the aligned through-cavities in the plurality of laminations; wherein the plurality of magnets inserted into each of the through-cavities in each of the laminations”.
The Hattori et al discloses the above, “wherein the plurality of laminations 310 have equal depths as thickness configurations as well as where the magnet depth Dr1 also equal to the stack depth Dr1 of the laminations 3 (see Figs. 8-9, respectively), and “inserting the plurality of magnets 320’s in the through-cavities 330’s so as one of the plurality of magnets 320 to mates with each of the aligned through-cavities 330 in the plurality of laminations 310’s (see Figs. 2-4, 8-9, respectively). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Hattori et al teaching onto the Cirani in order to form the rotor which meet manufacturing requirement including that as discussed above.
Limitations of claim 11 are also satisfied by the modified Cirani et al / Hattori et al as same rational discussion of claim 1 above.
The Cirani et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, wherein each polar sector has a plurality of through-cavities 144a-144b, that include the at least one through cavity 144 (see Fig. 2a).
Limitation of claim 3 is also met by the above (see Fig. 1, which depicts the magnets arranged symmetrically with respect to said axis of rotation in each lamination).
As applied to claims 8-9, refer to Fig. 11 which depicts the inner and outer through cavities and the bridges 44 x/y/z, which are associated thereto.
The prior art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 4, wherein the plurality of magnets each have equal depths (see Fig. 8-9).
Claim 5, wherein each lamination in the plurality of laminations 140 includes at least one polar sector and up to four polar sectors (see Fig. 2, depicts such above at least four polar sectors).
Claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of magnets have a parallelepiped shapes (see Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Hattori et al teaching onto the Cirani in order to form the rotor by utilizing the known and available process.
Further, regarding, claim 12, wherein there are four laminations in the plurality of laminations is matter of design choice since no inventive method feature existed therefrom, and It would have been obvious matter of design choice to provide a lamination stack with four laminations in a plurality of laminations is therefore not inventive when departing from modified of Cirani et al/ Hattori et al teaching and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) of record and newly added claims 8-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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 J 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt