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 . Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasmussen et al. (US 20180152060 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
419
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
292
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
336
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen discloses a stator of an electric machine (fig. 12) comprising
an annular stator (30, 3) having a longitudinal centre axis (axis of the shaft, fig. 12),
the stator including axial stator slots (slots, annotated figs. 8 and 13); and
stator teeth (inner and outer teeth, annotated figs. 8 and 13) formed between adjacent stator slots,
each stator slot receiving a conductor of a stator winding (conductor, annotated fig. 3),
the stator being formed of stator sectors (sector, annotated figs. 8 and 13),
each stator sector including an outermost stator tooth (outer teeth, annotated figs. 8 and 13) at each angular outer edge of the stator sector and intermediate stator teeth (inner teeth, annotated figs. 8 and 13) between the two outermost stator teeth,
a width of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector being equal (see, annotated figs. 8 and 13; see also abstract: “each segment comprises a first U-core and a second U-core wound with a winding”),
adjacent stator slots within each stator sector being distanced by a first slot pitch (first pitch, annotated fig. 13) and adjacent stator slots belonging to different stator sectors being distanced by a second slot pitch (second pitch, annotated fig. 13), characterized in that
the first slot pitch is smaller than the second slot pitch (see annotated fig. 13; implied due to the gap between the sectors while the inner and outer teeth have the same width).
Regarding claim 5, Rasmussen discloses the stator as claimed in any of claim 1, wherein the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is equal to the width of the intermediate stator teeth (as discussed regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Rasmussen, as discussed regarding claim 1, discloses an electric machine comprising
an annular stator having a longitudinal centre axis,
the stator including axial stator slots and stator teeth formed between adjacent stator slots,
each stator slot receiving a conductor of a stator winding,
the stator being formed of stator sectors,
each stator sector including an outermost stator tooth at each angular outer edge of the stator sector and intermediate stator teeth between the two outermost stator teeth,
a width of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector being equal,
adjacent stator slots within each stator sector being distanced by a first slot pitch and adjacent stator slots belonging to different stator sectors being distanced by a second slot pitch, characterized in that
the first slot pitch is smaller than the second slot pitch and a rotor.
Regarding claim 8, Rasmussen discloses the electric machine as claimed in claim 7,
PNG
media_image5.png
366
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the stator of the electric machine is quasi-skewed in relation to the rotor of the electric machine due to the asymmetry of the teeth in the stator of the electric machine (see the matches and mismatches between the rotor and stator poles in figs. 1, 6, and 10).
Regarding claim 12, Rasmussen discloses the stator as claimed in any of claim 2, wherein the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is equal to the width of the intermediate stator teeth (discussed regarding claim 1).
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen et al. (US 20180152060 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111245118 A).
PNG
media_image6.png
597
685
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rasmussen discloses the stator as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is over 50% of the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
Referring to annotated fig. 5c, above, Wang teaches a sectorized stator for an electric machine for minimizing cogging torque wherein: the stator being formed of stator sectors, each stator sector including outermost stator teeth at an angular outer edge of the stator sector and intermediate stator teeth, adjacent stator slots within each stator sector being distanced by a first slot pitch and adjacent stator slots belonging to different stator sectors being distanced by a second slot pitch, wherein the first slot pitch is smaller than the second slot pitch.
Wang also teaches the cogging torque is a function of a number of variables including the ratio of the width of the outer teeth to the width of inner teeth (see equation in para [0079]). This effectively means that the ratio of the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector to the width of the intermediate stator teeth is a result effective variable. Optimizing a result effective variable is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
For minimizing the cogging torque, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is over 50% of the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
Regarding claim 3, Rasmussen discloses the stator as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is at least 75% of the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
As discussed regarding claim 2, the ratio of the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector to the width of the intermediate stator teeth is a result effective variable.
For minimizing the cogging torque, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is at least 75% of the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
Regarding claim 4, Rasmussen discloses the stator as claimed in any of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is smaller than the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
As discussed regarding claim 2, the ratio of the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector to the width of the intermediate stator teeth is a result effective variable.
For minimizing the cogging torque, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is smaller than the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
Regarding claim 6, Rasmussen discloses the stator as claimed in any one of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector of the intermediate stator teeth is greater than the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
As discussed regarding claim 2, the ratio of the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector to the width of the intermediate stator teeth is a result effective variable.
For minimizing the cogging torque, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector of the intermediate stator teeth is greater than the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
Regarding claim 9, Rasmussen discloses the electric machine as claimed in claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the rotor is provided with permanent magnets.
However, providing a rotor with permanent magnets is a well-known practice in the art as evidenced by Wang. Wang discloses the proposed sectorized stator design can be used in an electric machine having a rotor with permanent magnets (see the title: “Not Equal Tooth Width Combined Permanent-magnet Synchronous Motor And Electromagnetic Vibration Attenuating Method Thereof”).
To create a permanent magnet synchronous motor with reduced cogging torque, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine disclosed by Rasmussen in such a way that: the rotor is provided with permanent magnets.
Regarding claim 10, Rasmussen discloses the stator as claimed in claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is at least 75% of the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
As discussed regarding claim 2, the ratio of the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector to the width of the intermediate stator teeth is a result effective variable.
For minimizing the cogging torque, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is at least 75% of the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
Regarding claim 11, Rasmussen discloses the stator as claimed in any of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is smaller than the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
As discussed regarding claim 2, the ratio of the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector to the width of the intermediate stator teeth is a result effective variable.
For minimizing the cogging torque, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is smaller than the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
Regarding claim 13, Rasmussen discloses the stator as claimed in any one of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is greater than the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
As discussed regarding claim 2, the ratio of the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector to the width of the intermediate stator teeth is a result effective variable.
For minimizing the cogging torque, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the width of each of the two outermost stator teeth in each stator sector is greater than the width of the intermediate stator teeth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST..
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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834