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 § 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8, 9, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba et al. (US 2016/0028278 A1) in view of Neiszer (US 2014/0054985 A1) and Miyama et al. (US 2023/0111062 A1).
RE claim 8, Baba teaches a rotor 100 (Fig.1) of a rotatory permanently excited machine 50, the rotor 100 comprising:
a magnetically conductive body 12 (steel plate, see ¶ 35) including substantially axially extending recesses 13, each of the recesses 13 designed with a pocket 13;
permanent magnets 14 (Fig.1 and ¶ 34) arranged in the recesses 13 such that the pockets 13 of the recesses receive at least one of the permanent magnets 14;
flux barriers 13c situated in a longitudinal axis of the recesses at opposed ends of the pockets 13 (Figs.2, 3);
means (7, 8) provided in a region between the pockets 13 and the flux barriers 13c for increasing an opposing field stability at a side of the recesses facing an external diameter of the rotor 100, said means (7, 8) arranged as holding elements (7, 8) on the ends of the pockets 13 to assist in a positioning and fixing of the permanent magnets 14 in the pockets 13 (¶ 40), said holding elements (7, 8) designed as webs or functional holding webs (7, 8) and having at least one section 7 to form the pockets 13 for receiving the permanent magnets 14, with the webs or functional holding webs (7, 8) being designed on an air-gap side of the pockets 13 such as to counteract at least in one section an irreversible demagnetization of the permanent magnets 14 in the pockets and to maintain a protective function for the permanent magnets 14 in the event of a fault such as a sudden short-circuit of the permanently excited machine (¶ 39, 40); and
Baba does not teach:
said electrical machine is synchronous machine.
the recesses are arranged in a V-shape or in a double V-shape or in a U-shape having an apex facing away from an air-gap side of the recesses, and magnetically conductive sheet metal webs extending between the flux barriers on the apex of adjacent recesses.
RE (i) above, Neiszer suggests that synchronous permanent magnet machine is well-known for its reliability, efficiency, torque and power factor when compared to other type of electrical machine (¶ 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baba by utilizing said electrical machine to be synchronous machine, as suggested by Neiszer, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Miyama teaches the recesses 35 (Fig.10) are arranged in a V-shape or in a double V-shape or in a U-shape having an apex facing away from an air-gap side of the recesses 35, and magnetically conductive sheet metal webs (A3, A4, see ¶ 28 for core 31 is made of steel sheet) extending between the flux barriers on the apex of adjacent recesses 35 (Fig.10). Miyama suggests that the arrangement of recess can be adjusted (V shape or U-shape) to optimize q-axis magnetic flux and increase torque (¶ 91). Miyama further suggests that the bridge allows centrifugal force applied to rotor to be relax such that increase in the rotation speed of the rotating electric machine can be facilitated (¶ 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baba in view of Neiszer by having the recesses are arranged in a V-shape or in a double V-shape or in a U-shape having an apex facing away from an air-gap side of the recesses, and magnetically conductive sheet metal webs extending between the flux barriers on the apex of adjacent recesses, as taught by Miyama, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 9/8, Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama has been discussed above. Baba further teaches the magnetically conductive body 12 is embodied as an axially layered laminated core (¶ 35 for core formed by laminating in an extending direction of the rotary shaft 11).
RE claim 12/8, Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama has been discussed above. Baba further teaches the permanent magnets 14 abut against the air-gap-side longitudinal side 13a in the pockets 13 in a complementary manner (Figs.3, 4).
RE claim 13/8, Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama has been discussed above. Baba further teaches the flux barriers 13c are arranged at the ends of the pockets 13, substantially as an extension of the longitudinal axis of the recesses 13 and perpendicular to a magnetization direction of the permanent magnets 14 (see Fig.5 and ¶ 50 for flux 16 pass in a radial direction. The flux barrier 13c is arranged on circumferential side of magnet 14 which is substantially perpendicular to flux 16).
RE claim 14/8, Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama teaches the webs 8 have a radial or quasi radial extension (Fig.3). Baba does not teach the extension extends at most up to half of a magnetic thickness of an adjacent one of the permanent magnets in the pockets.
However, Baba suggested in the drawing that the extension 8 extends at most up to half of a magnetic thickness of an adjacent one of the permanent magnets 14 in the pockets 13. Baba further suggests that the dimension (Ta) of the extension is a result effective variable whose value can be adjusted to improve demagnetization resistance of magnet (¶ 44-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama by having the extension extends at most up to half of a magnetic thickness of an adjacent one of the permanent magnets in the pockets, as taught by Baba, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
RE claim 15/14, Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama has been discussed above. Baba does not teach the radial or quasi radial extension is at least 1 mm.
As previously discussed, Baba further suggests that the dimension (Ta) of the extension is a result effective variable whose value can be adjusted to improve demagnetization resistance of magnet (¶ 44-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama by having the radial or quasi radial extension is at least 1 mm, as suggested by Baba, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
RE claim 16, Baba in view of Neiszer has been discussed above. Baba further teaches at least one of the permanent magnets 14 is provided per pole and/or recess 13 (Figs.1-4).
RE claim 17, Baba teaches a permanently excited machine (Figs.1-4), comprising: a stator 1; and a rotor 100 spaced apart from the stator by an air gap 5, said rotor 100 comprising a magnetically conductive body 12 (steel plate, see ¶ 35) including substantially axially extending recesses 13, each of the recesses 13 designed with a pocket 13, permanent magnets 14 arranged in the recesses 13 such that the pockets 13 of the recesses 13 receive at least one of the permanent magnets 14, flux barriers 13c situated in a longitudinal axis of the recesses at opposed ends of the pockets 13, means (7, 8) provided in a region between the pockets 13 and the flux barriers 13c for increasing an opposing field stability at a side of the recesses facing an external diameter of the rotor 100, said means (7, 8) arranged as holding elements (7, 8) on the ends of the pockets 13 to assist in a positioning and fixing of the permanent magnets 14 in the pockets 13 (¶ 40), said holding elements (7, 8) designed as webs 8 or functional holding webs 8 and having at least one section to form the pockets 13 for receiving the permanent magnets 14, with the webs or functional holding webs 8 being designed on an air-gap side of the pockets 13 such as to counteract at least in one section an irreversible demagnetization of the permanent magnets 14 in the pockets 13 and to maintain a protective function for the permanent magnets 14 in the event of a fault such as a sudden short-circuit of the permanently excited machine (¶ 39, 40).
Baba does not teach:
said electrical machine is synchronous machine.
the recesses are arranged in a V-shape or in a double V-shape or in a U-shape having an apex facing away from an air-gap side of the recesses, and magnetically conductive sheet metal webs extending between the flux barriers on the apex of adjacent recesses.
RE (i) above, Neiszer suggests that synchronous permanent magnet machine is well-known for its reliability, efficiency, torque and power factor when compared to other type of electrical machine (¶ 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baba by utilizing said electrical machine to be synchronous machine, as suggested by Neiszer, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Miyama teaches the recesses 35 (Fig.10) are arranged in a V-shape or in a double V-shape or in a U-shape having an apex facing away from an air-gap side of the recesses 35, and magnetically conductive sheet metal webs (A3, A4, see ¶ 28 for core 31 is made of steel sheet) extending between the flux barriers on the apex of adjacent recesses 35 (Fig.10). Miyama suggests that the arrangement of recess can be adjusted (V shape or U-shape) to optimize q-axis magnetic flux and increase torque (¶ 91). Miyama further suggests that the bridge allows centrifugal force applied to rotor to be relax such that increase in the rotation speed of the rotating electric machine can be facilitated (¶ 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baba in view of Neiszer by having the recesses are arranged in a V-shape or in a double V-shape or in a U-shape having an apex facing away from an air-gap side of the recesses, and magnetically conductive sheet metal webs extending between the flux barriers on the apex of adjacent recesses, as taught by Miyama, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 18/17, Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama has been discussed above. Baba further teaches the magnetically conductive body 12 is embodied as an axially layered laminated core (¶ 35 for core formed by laminating in an extending direction of the rotary shaft 11).
RE claim 20/17, Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama has been discussed above. Baba further teaches a conveying system, compressor (Fig.10 and ¶ 70), compactor or traction drive, comprising a permanently excited synchronous machine as set forth in claim 17.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hofmeister (WO 2009/016077 A1).
RE claim 11/8, Baba in view of Neiszer and Miyama has been discussed above. Baba does not teach the means for increasing an opposing field stability are arranged alternately on the pockets of metal sheets of the rotor in an axial direction of the rotor.
Hofmeister teaches the means (11, 16) (Fig.1) for increasing an opposing field stability are arranged alternately on the pockets of metal sheets of the rotor in an axial direction of the rotor (see Fig.1), so that a sufficiently good magnetic connection of disk set and permanent magnet is given (see translation page 4, 2nd ¶).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baba by having means for increasing an opposing field stability are arranged alternately on the pockets of metal sheets of the rotor in an axial direction of the rotor, as taught by Hofmeister, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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 THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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, Seye 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834