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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 7,8, 10, 11, 13-19, and 22-28 under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of SASA in view of CHAI fails to teach the subject matter of amended claim 1, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the clip of SASA has two legs connected by a crosspiece and the legs protrude through two gaps that are adjacent to different top bars. However, as SASA does not disclose spanning two top bars, and the teaching reference of CHAI does not disclose the legs being connected by a crosspiece, the rejection contemplates that it would have been obvious to provide the structure of the clip of SASA with a wider distance between legs. In addition to relying upon teachings directly from the teaching reference, this further constitutes a mere rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI.C).
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims merely recite the same alleged shortcomings of SASA and CHAI with respect to independent claim 1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/23/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. However, a copy of Chinese document CN 112385122, cited in the Indian office action, has been provided herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 14-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASA in view of CHAI (CN 104218715; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, SASA discloses a rotor (1) for an electric machine, comprising a laminated core (1A) with slots (unlabeled; see Fig. 13) in which bottom bars (2B) and top bars (2A) are arranged, the bottom bars and the top bars extending in an axial direction (unlabeled; see Fig. 10 and Col. 9, lines 40-52) beyond the laminated core (1A) to form a winding overhang (see Fig. 9);
a bottom bar (2B) of one slot is respectively connected to a top bar (2A) of another slot in the winding overhang (see Figs. 9 and 11) and, in a plan view, bottom bars (2B) and top bars (2A) cross axially outside the laminated core (1A) at crossing points (see Fig. 13) and gaps (19) remain between the crossing points; and
a support device (11 and 12) having a retaining body (rings 12) arranged radially inside the winding overhang and at least one clip (U-shaped bolt 11) having two legs connected by a crosspiece (see Fig. 13), the at least one clip (11) being connected to both the retaining body (12) and to a top bar (2A) in order to radially support the top bar (2A) by means of the retaining body (12), and the retaining body being arranged between the two legs, wherein the crosspiece spans top bars so that the legs connected by the crosspiece protrude through two gaps (19) that are adjacent to different top bars (2A) (see Figs. 12 and 13; see annotated Fig. 12, below).
However, SASA does not disclose the crosspiece spans two top bars.
PNG
media_image1.png
647
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
820
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
499
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
561
696
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
499
728
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
834
834
media_image6.png
Greyscale
CHAI discloses a rotor for an electric machine with a clip having two legs (4) and a crosspiece (1), wherein the crosspiece (1) spans two top bars (5) so that the legs (4) protrude through two gaps that are adjacent to different top bars (5) (CHAI accomplished this with multiple crosspieces, each spanning two top bars; see Fig. 1 of CHAI, above).
PNG
media_image7.png
624
472
media_image7.png
Greyscale
CHAI Fig. 1
It 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 to make the retaining body of SASA with its u-shaped clip having a crosspiece that spans two top bars so that the legs protrude through two gaps that are adjacent to different top bars, similar to that of CHAI.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide a winding clamp structure that is simple to manufacture, improves ventilation and heat management, and is convenient to observe for inspection, as taught by CHAI (see para [0016]), adapts to thermal expansion and mechanical deformation (see paras [0006] and [0013]), and evenly distributes centrifugal forces (see para [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, wherein the crosspiece is arranged radially outside the top bars and is connected to at least two top bars (See Figs. 9, 12, and 13).
Regarding claim 3, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1 wherein the retaining body (12) is embodied to be ring-shaped (see Col. 9, line 47) and the legs protrude up to an inner diameter of the retaining body (12) (see Figs. 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 4, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1 wherein a closing link (13) that is releasably connected to the legs is provided.
Regarding claim 5, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 4, wherein the retaining body (12) is connected to the clip (11) via the closing link (13) (see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 6, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 4 wherein the closing link (13) comprises radial through-bores through which the legs protrude, wherein securing elements (17) are provided on the legs after the closing link (13), which securing elements keep the closing link (13) on the legs (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 6, wherein, between the securing elements (17) and the closing link (13), spring elements which are pretensioned with a predefined pretension force (washers 21 are disk springs as broadly claimed) (see Fig. 14).
PNG
media_image8.png
528
875
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1 wherein the legs comprise threads (11A).
Regarding claim 14, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, wherein the retaining body (12) is connected to the laminated core in a fixed manner in the axial direction of the bars (see Col. 10, lines 12-20 and Fig. 9)).
Regarding claim 15, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, wherein the retaining body (12) is connected to the laminated core such that it can be moved in a radial direction by a radial guide (ring fixing bolt 18; see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 16, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, wherein a component, in particular a pressure plate (12A), connected in a fixed manner to the laminated rotor core (1A) (see Fig. 9) comprises a first guide means (12C) running in a radial direction, in particular radial slots (see Fig. 10), and the retaining body (12) comprises a corresponding second guide means, in particular guide pins (unlabeled, see threaded rods attached to bolts 18), which engage with the first guide means (12C), so that, via the interacting guides, the retaining body (12) is connected to the laminated core (1A) such that it can be moved in a radial direction and is fixed in a circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 17, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 16, wherein, in the axial direction of the bars, multiple retaining bodies (12; see Fig. 17) are provided which are kinematically coupled in a circumferential direction via a radial guide and can be moved relative to one another in a radial direction(see Fig. 26).
PNG
media_image9.png
638
892
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
712
946
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 17, wherein the retaining bodies (12) are axially connected to the pressure plate (12A) by screws (unlabeled; bolts 18 are threaded thereon), wherein the screws extend continuously from an axially outermost retaining body (12) to the pressure plate (12A) and are under a defined pretension (the screws are inherently under a defined pretension; i.e. as defined by the degree of tightening of bolts 18).
Regarding claim 20, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, wherein the crosspieces are oriented roughly parallel to the axial direction (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 21, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, wherein multiple clips (11) are arranged in a distributed manner along a circumferential direction (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 22, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, wherein multiple clips (11) are provided in the axial direction of the bars (see Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 23, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, wherein the retaining body (12) encompasses a rotor axis and is embodied to be plate-shaped (see Fig. 10).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASA in view of CHAI and further in view of SEMKEN.
Regarding claim 9, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, as discussed above.
However, SASA in view of CHAI does not teach the clip (11) is formed from an austenitic material.
SEMKEN discloses a laminated body in an electric machine with a support device (end plates) made of austenitic material (see para [0221]).
It 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 to make the clips of SASA in view of CHAI from austenitic material, similar to that of SEMKEN.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide a strong support structure that would reduce eddy current losses by forming from a non-magnetic material, as taught by SEMKEN (see para [0221]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASA in view of CHAI and further in view of NAGASAKO (JP H06253485; previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, as discussed above.
However, SASA in view of CHAI does not teach the clip (11) is formed from cold-worked metal, in particular a cold-drawn steel.
NAGASAKO discloses an electric machine with a rotor support device (end ring) made from a cold-drawn steel (see abstract and para [0017])
It 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 to make the clips of SASA in view of CHAI from cold-drawn steel, similar to that of NAGASAKO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide a high strength, tough, non-magnetic support structure as taught by NAGASAKO (see para [0017]).
Regarding claim 11, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, as discussed above.
However, SASA in view of CHAI does not teach the retaining body (12) comprises a ferritic material, in particular a ferritic steel, or is formed from such a material.
NAGASAKO discloses an electric machine with a rotor support device (end ring) made from a ferritic steel (see para [0007]-[0010])
It 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 to make the retaining body of SASA in view of CHAI from ferritic steel, similar to that of NAGASAKO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to create a stable, strong material without impairing workability as taught by NAGASAKO (see para [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, as discussed above.
However, SASA in view of CHAI does not teach the retaining body (12) comprises a fine-grain steel.
NAGASAKO discloses an electric machine with a rotor support device (end ring) made from a fine-grain steel (see para [0013])
It 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 to make the retaining body of SASA in view of CHAI from fine-grain steel, similar to that of NAGASAKO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to make a material of a predetermined strength with reduced expansion ratio as taught by NAGASAKO (see para [0013]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASA in view of CHAI and further in view NAGASAKO and further in view of WANG (US 20050073215).
Regarding claim 13, SASA in view of CHAI and further in view NAGASAKO teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, as discussed above.
However, SASA in view of CHAI and further in view NAGASAKO does not teach the retaining body (12) comprises a ferritic inner portion and a non- magnetic outer portion that is in particular composed of aluminum, a composite fiber material, or a laminated fabric.
NAGASAKO discloses an electric machine with a rotor support device (end ring) made from a ferritic steel (see para [0007]-[0010]).
WANG discloses an electric machine rotor support device (enclosure) including a radially inner metal layer and a radial outer layer of graphite fiber laminates (see para [0014]).
It 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 to make the retaining body of SASA in view of CHAI and further in view NAGASAKO from ferritic steel, similar to that of NAGASAKO, with an outer layer of graphite fiber laminates over the inner metal layer, similar to that of WANG.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to create a stable, strong material without impairing workability as taught by NAGASAKO (see para [0007]) while providing a material of high specific strength as taught by WANG (see para [0006]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASA in view of CHAI and further in view of ARIMATSU (US 20160141929).
Regarding claim 19, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 16, as discussed above, and further discloses the rotor (1) comprises a rotor body having arms (spokes 10) arranged in a distributed manner along a circumferential direction and openings arranged between the arms (see Fig. 8), through which openings a cooling air can be supplied (no specific cooling air movement structure is claimed) to the laminated rotor core (1A), wherein the first guide (12C), which extend[s] radially (see Fig. 10), [is] arranged along a circumferential direction at positions that correspond to positions of the arms in the region of [the] pressure plate (the guide is axially outward of the positions of the arms, which ‘corresponds to’ the positions as broadly claimed).
PNG
media_image11.png
371
522
media_image11.png
Greyscale
However, SASA in view of CHAI does not teach the laminated core is shrink-fitted onto the rotor body.
ARIMATSU discloses a rotor for an electric machine that is assembled by shrink-fit (see para [0068]).
It 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 to make the laminated core of SASA in view of CHAI shrink-fitted onto the rotor body, similar to the rotor of ARIMATSU.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to easily perform the fitting procedure as taught by ARIMATSU (see para [0068])
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASA in view of CHAI and further in view of ABATE (US 5264750).
Regarding claim 24, SASA in view of CHAI teaches the rotor (1) according to claim 1, as discussed above.
However, SASA in view of CHAI does not teach between the retaining body and the bottom bars, a sliding device is arranged which comprises on at least one side a surface that is formed by a material with a low friction coefficient, in particular by a Teflon-carbon plate.
ABATE discloses a rotor for an electric machine wherein between a retaining body (retaining rings 22) and a bottom bar (winding stack 12), a sliding device (slip plane 36) is arranged (see Fig. 2) which comprises on at least one side a surface that is formed by a material with a low friction coefficient (see col. 3, lines 40-47) which is a TEFLON-carbon plate (see col. 5, lines 49-61).
PNG
media_image12.png
184
464
media_image12.png
Greyscale
ABATE Fig. 2
It 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 to make the rotor of SASA in view of CHAI with, between the retaining body and the bottom bars, a sliding device arranged which comprises on at least one side a surface that is formed by a material with a low friction coefficient, in particular by a Teflon-carbon plate similar to that of ABATE.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to compensate for thermal stresses and reduce mechanical moments that can cause bending and imbalance of the motor as taught by ABATE (see col. 1, lines 12-20)
Regarding claim 25, SASA in view of CHAI and further in view of ABATE teaches the rotor according to claim 24, as discussed above.
ABATE further discloses the sliding device (36) is connected to the bottom bars (12) in a fixed manner and to the retaining body (22) in an axially movable manner (see col. 4, lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 26, SASA in view of CHAI and further in view of ABATE teaches the rotor according to claim 24, as discussed above.
ABATE further discloses the sliding device comprises an anti-friction layer which is formed from a material with a low friction coefficient, in particular by a Teflon-carbon plate (see col. 5, lines 49-61).
However, neither SASA, CHAI, nor ABATE disclose the anti-friction layer with a radial height of 2 mm to 10 mm.
ABATE discloses the anti-friction layer with a radial height of 0.015 to 0.050 inches, about the same as the winding insulation (.635mm-1.27mm; see col. 5, lines 51-53), so as not to displace the winding turns and to allow the windings in its vicinity to remain electrically active (see col. 3, lines 48-57), making the radial heights of the anti-friction layer result effective variables, in order to improve winding arrangement.
Thus, it 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 to arrange the anti-friction layer according to the claimed radial heights between 2mm-10mm.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the winding arrangement, as taught by ABATE ((see col. 3, lines 48-57)), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASA in view of CHAI and further in view of ABATE as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of GOHN (US 20020180305).
Regarding claim 27, SASA in view of CHAI and further in view of ABATE teaches the rotor according to claim 24, as discussed above and further wherein bores run through the sliding device in the axial direction.
However, neither SASA, CHAI, nor ABATE teach the sliding device comprises a layer which is formed by a paramagnetic material, in particular by aluminum or an epoxy glass cloth laminate.
GOHN teaches an electrical machine with an anti-friction layer (lubricating varnish) which is a coating of aluminum (see para [0015]).
It 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 to make the electric machine of SASA in view of CHAI and further in view of ABATE with the sliding device comprising a layer which is formed by aluminum, similar to GOHN, wherein bores run through the layer in the axial direction, similar to ABATE.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to lubricate the device while not allowing the abrasion products to be entrained into the magnetic field as taught by GOHN (see para [0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN-112385122-A WIESSMANN was cited in IDS filed 03/23/2026; EP-3460957-A1 SABELFELD teaches a clip having two legs 26,28 connected by a crosspiece 34.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN STEFANON whose telephone number is (703)756-4648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays 8AM - 5PM EDT.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (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.
/JUSTIN STEFANON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights