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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/26 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are now pending of record.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The language appears to be in claim formats and should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title See MPEP § 608.01(b). Correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 5-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of the claim 1 should be updated to: -- A process for assembling a rotor of a variable-reluctance synchronous motor, the method comprising steps of: --.
Many terms or phrases existed in the amended pending claims which is/are unclear, confusing and awkwardly worded the following are examples:
The phrase:” providing a plurality of laminations that each include multiple polar sectors, wherein each lamination in the plurality of laminations has at least one through-cavity for each polar sector that is included in the multiple polar sectors and wherein the plurality of laminations has equal depths;” (claim 1, lines 1-4) is awkwardly worded and confusing. It is suggested the following formats.
-- providing a plurality of laminations have equal depths, wherein each lamination of the plurality of laminations further includes multiple polar sectors, and at least one through-cavity formed on each polar sector of the multiple polar sectors;” --.
“aligning a set of through-cavities that are included in the plurality of through- cavities in the plurality of laminations in sequence along an axis of rotation such that said each through-cavity in the set of through-cavities are arranged in a parallel direction to said axis of rotation;” (claim 1, lines 11-14) appears to be: -- aligning a set of through-cavities from the plurality of through- cavities in the plurality of laminations in sequence along an axis of rotation such that said each through-cavity in the set of through-cavities are arranged in a parallel direction to said axis of rotation”--
“providing a plurality of magnets 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 the plurality of laminations of the rotor as measured along a rotational axis of the rotor;” (claim 1, lines 15-18) should be updated to: --"providing a plurality of magnets each has an identical predefined depth, wherein said predefined depth of each magnet of the plurality of magnets is smaller than a depth of the plurality of laminations of the rotor by measuring along a longitudinal rotational axis of the rotor;”--, for clarity of the inventive method features.
“sequentially inserting the plurality of magnets into the set of aligned through- cavities so that one of the plurality of magnets mates with each of the aligned through-cavities in the plurality of said laminations;” (claim 1, lines 19-21) appears to be: --"sequentially inserting the plurality of magnets into the set of aligned through- cavities so that one of the plurality of magnets mates with each of the aligned through-cavities formed in the plurality of said laminations;” --.
“wherein sequentially inserting the plurality of magnets into the set of aligned through-cavities includes successively inserting one of the plurality of magnets through each through cavity in the set of aligned through cavities;”(claim 1, lines 22-24) is awkwardly worded appears to be:--" wherein, the sequentially inserting the plurality of magnets into the set of aligned through-cavities includes completely inserting the plurality of magnets through the set of aligned through- cavities formed in the plurality of said laminations;
“and wherein the plurality of magnets is inserted into each of the through-cavities in each of the laminations.” (claim 1, line 25-26) appears to be: --“completely inserting the plurality of magnets into the plurality of through- cavities formed in the plurality laminations to form the rotor assembly”--
Claims 2-10 are also objected to as depend from the objected to claim 1. 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 11-12 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.
Since the scope of the claims directed to a process (see preamble of claim 11) and claim recites
“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” (see claim 11, lines 8-15) directed to the rotor structure elements without any positively active method limitations as to how the” rotor entity” is formed which raises issue of scope of the claim unclear.
Similar to discussion above applied to claim 12, since no inventive method limitation existed in claim 12.
Further, it is not known as to how the sequentially inserting step can be done, since claim 11 is lacking of preparing and/or providing of the laminations, and forming multiple through cavities, as well as polar sections and providing a plurality of magnets prior to "sequentially inserting" which taken place in the body of claim 11, line 3. Therefore, the scope of claim 11 is considered to be unclear. In formulate the rejection on the merits the examiner presumes that claims 11-12 are process claims and claims will be rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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) 11-12 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tsuchida et al (2014/0346911) or In an alternatively Claim(s) 11-12 ias best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida et al (2014/0346911) in view of Kolehmainen (9577481).
Tsuchida et al discloses the claimed process for assembling a rotor of a variable-reluctance synchronous motor, comprising:
sequentially inserting a plurality of magnets 4/5 through multiple through-cavities that are included in sequential laminations in a plurality of laminations (or core) see Figs. 3-6 and discussed in ¶¶ [0004-0007], col. 3, respectively);
wherein sequentially inserting the plurality of magnets through the multiple through-cavities includes successively inserting one of the plurality of magnets through each through cavity in a set of aligned through cavities (see Fig. 3, which depicts multiples through cavities or holes 103); and
regarding to” wherein the rotor includes: the plurality of laminations or rotor portion , 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” is not method inventive features when departed from the Tsuchida et al. Note that the Examiner position is that rotor 1 of the applied references is formed by a plurality of laminations or portion 10 as shown in Figs. 3-6 of the Tsuchida et al).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, if it is argued that the Tsuchida et al does not teach regarding to “wherein the rotor includes: the plurality of laminations or rotor portion , 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”.
Then Applicants refer to: 1) above directed to structure entity of the rotor which does not further limit the process as claimed because no active method step or inventive method feature as to how the rotor is made in form of method claim formats (see also section of 112 rejection above). 2) The Kolehmainen discloses the rotor core includes the plurality of laminations or sheet stack RS1 (see discussed in col.6, ¶¶¶ [0003-0005], wherein each of the laminations or sheet RS1’ 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(see discussed in col. 6, about ¶¶ [0006-0007] and Fig. 4, also shows the above structure features of through cavities formed in the laminates or sheet stack RS1’ that houses the plurality of magnets M11’, M12’, 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 product as taught by the Kolehmainen onto the Tsuchida et al in order to obtain a rotor which have all the features configurations requirement as mentioned above for various known benefits includes improves electrical properties of the electric machine. The motivation for the combination teaching can be obtained by either of reference above (see col. 1, lines 50-51 of the Kolehmainen).
PNG
media_image2.png
691
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As applied to claim 12, noting Kolehmainen teaches the claimed “wherein there are four laminations in the sheet stack RS1’in the plurality of laminations” (see Fig. 4, RS1’s represented laminations).
Conclusion
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 7/9/26
Prosecution Insights