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 Objections
Applicant has amended claim 17 objection from “a controller, ;” to “a controller,”. Thus, objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, page 13 lines 5 – 23 to page 14 lines 1 – 6, filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that “Anticipation requires that Borchardt disclose, within its four corners, each and every limitation of the claim, including the claimed structural features as arranged (MPEP §2131). Here, Borchardt fails to disclose the claimed mechanical joint in which (i) each pole shoe includes "two symmetrical hook-shaped pole shoe end portions" that "become thinner along a circumferential direction ... and comprise at least one first curved portion," and (ii) the wedge includes "two symmetrical first wedge portions" having "at least one second curved portion," where each first wedge portion "fits" a respective hook-shaped pole-shoe end portion. Borchardt's disclosure instead is directed to slot closure elements for closing salient-pole gaps and reducing leakage flux, which are retained by mechanisms unrelated to the claimed hook-shaped/thinning/curved interfit. For example, Borchardt explains that "the permanent magnets are held between the pole shoes ... by means of a bandage running around the laminated rotor core" (Borchardt 1[[0010]) and, alternatively, that slot closure wedges may be fixed via groove/projection engagement, e.g., "pole pieces ... have groove-like depressions" and "slot wedges ... have projections ... pushed into the groove-like depressions" (Borchardt 1[0017]). Neither retention approach requires (and Borchardt nowhere describes) the claimed "hook-shaped" pole-shoe end portions that thin circumferentially, nor the claimed paired curved mating surfaces by which the wedge end portions "fit" those hook-shaped end portions. The Office Action's reliance on examiner-added segmentation and geometric characterizations drawn from an annotated figure does not establish anticipation; inherency requires the limitation be necessarily present, not merely a possible interpretation (see, e.g., In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999))", a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant's arguments, page 15 whole page to page 20 lines 1 – 8, filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claim limitations of “each first wedge portion comprises at least one second convex curved portion” and “the wedge further including two symmetrical third wedge portions” are not disclosed in Borchardt et al. However, annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2 below in the rejection, discloses the second convex curved portion and the wedge (groove closure elements 14) further including two symmetrical third wedge portions (see below in rejection).
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 (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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 7, and 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borchardt et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Borchardt et al. discloses a rotor (4) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1), comprising:
a rotor core (lamination stack 6) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
a plurality of slots (13) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
and a rotating shaft (not shown but it is implied by the hole in the center of the rotor core to be sleeved on the rotating shaft to rotate in Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
wherein each slot of the plurality of slots comprises one wedge (slot closure element 14) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and rotor windings are wound in each slot (Borchardt et al. Para [0016] line 7);
the rotor core is sleeved on the rotating shaft (not shown but it is implied by the hole in the center of the rotor core to be sleeved on the rotating shaft to rotate in Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
and the plurality of slots are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1);
the rotor core comprises a rotor core body (yoke ring 7) and a plurality of pole shoes (10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
and the plurality of pole shoes are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core body (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1);
the pole shoe comprises a pole shoe body (middle of pole shoe 10) and two symmetrical hook shaped pole shoe end portions (two ends of pole shoe 10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2),
wherein the hook-shaped pole shoe end portion becomes thinner along a circumferential direction relative to the pole shoe body (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) and comprises at least one first curved portion (see below in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2);
and the wedge comprises a wedge body (16) and two symmetrical first wedge portions (respective ends of slot closure element 14 connected to respective pole shoes 10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
each first wedge portion comprises at least one second convex curved portion (see below in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and each first wedge portion fits one hook-shaped pole shoe end portion of one of the pole shoes (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
PNG
media_image1.png
464
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the wedge further including two symmetrical third wedge portions (pair of wedge body 16 side portions in slots 13) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Borchardt et al. discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the first curved portion comprises a first concave curved portion and/or a first convex curved portion (above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2, the first curved portion is concave);
the second curved portion comprises a second convex curved portion (above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2, the second curved portion is convex) and/or a second concave curved portion (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another);
and the first concave curved portion fits the second convex curved portion (above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and/or the first convex curved portion fits the second concave curved portion (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another).
Regarding Claim 3, Borchardt et al. discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the pole shoe further comprises a second pole shoe portion (outer edge 11) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and the second pole shoe portion is connected to the first curved portion (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2);
and the second pole shoe portion is in an eccentric circular arc shape (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1), and a center position of the eccentric circular arc shape does not coincide with an axis center of the rotating shaft (of annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 shown below);
or the second pole shoe portion is in an arc shape of an air gap secant function (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another).
Regarding Claim 7, Borchardt et al. discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the wedge further comprises one or more pairs of third wedge portions (one pair of wedge body 16 side portions in slots 13) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2);
and each pair of third wedge portions are symmetrically located on two sides of the wedge body (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Borchardt et al. discloses a motor (synchronous machine 1) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
comprising at least a stator (2) and a rotor (3) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1), wherein the rotor comprises (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1):
a rotor core (rotor lamination stack 6) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
a plurality of slots (groove-like pole gaps 13) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
and a rotating shaft (not shown but it is implied by the hole in the center of the rotor core to be sleeved on the rotating shaft to rotate in Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
wherein each slot comprises one wedge (groove closure elements 14) (Borchardt et al.),
and rotor windings are wound in each slot (Borchardt et al. Para [0016] line 7);
the rotor core is sleeved on the rotating shaft (not shown but it is inherent for the rotor core to be sleeved on the rotating shaft to rotate in Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
and the plurality of slots are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1);
the rotor core comprises a rotor core body (yoke ring 7) and a plurality of pole shoes (10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
and the plurality of pole shoes are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core body (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1);
the pole shoe comprises a pole shoe body (middle of pole shoe 10) and two symmetrical hook shaped pole shoe end portions (two ends of pole shoe 10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2),
wherein the hook-shaped pole shoe end portion becomes thinner along a circumferential direction relative to the pole shoe body (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) and comprises at least one first curved portion (see above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2);
and the wedge comprises a wedge body (16) and two symmetrical first wedge portions (respective ends of slot closure element 14 connected to respective pole shoes 10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
each first wedge portion comprises at least one second convex curved portion (see above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and each first wedge portion fits one hook-shaped pole shoe end portion of one of the pole shoes (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
the wedge further including two symmetrical third wedge portions (pair of wedge body 16 side portions in slots 13) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2);
wherein the stator is sleeved on an outer circumference of the rotor (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1), and the stator comprises a stator core (stator lamination stack 3) and stator windings wound around the stator core (Borchardt et al. Para [0016] line 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Borchardt et al. discloses the motor according to claim 11, wherein the first curved portion comprises a first concave curved portion and/or a first convex curved portion (above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2, the first curved portion is concave);
the second curved portion comprises a second convex curved portion (above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2, the second curved portion is convex) and/or a second concave curved portion (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another);
and the first concave curved portion fits the second convex curved portion (above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and/or the first convex curved portion fits the second concave curved portion (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another).
Regarding Claim 13, Borchardt et al. discloses the motor according to claim 11, wherein the pole shoe further comprises a second pole shoe portion (outer edge 11) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and the second pole shoe portion is connected to the first curved portion (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2);
and the second pole shoe portion is in an eccentric circular arc shape (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
and a center position of the eccentric circular arc shape does not coincide with an axis center of the rotating shaft (of annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 shown below);
PNG
media_image2.png
428
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or the second pole shoe portion is in an arc shape of an air gap secant function (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another).
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:
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchardt et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Borchardt et al. discloses the rotor according to claim 3, wherein an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 discloses the air gap length is between the outer edge 11 of the pole shoe 10 and inner surface of the stator teeth of stator lamination stack 3).
Borchardt et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion satisfies:
δ(θ)=δ_0∙secθ,
wherein δ(θ) represents the air gap length of the second pole shoe portion,
δ_0 represents an air gap length at a position of a symmetry line of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe,
and θ represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe.
However, since Borchardt et al. discloses δ(θ), which represents the air gap length of the second pole portion, and δ_0, which represents an air gap length at a position of symmetry of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe, this can be used to calculate θ, which represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe. This shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Borchardt et al. to satisfy applicant’s claimed function to optimize the performance of the rotor core.
As a result, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Borchardt et al. so that an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion satisfies: δ(θ)=δ_0∙secθ, wherein δ(θ) represents the air gap length of the second pole shoe portion, δ_0 represents an air gap length at a position of a symmetry line of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe, and θ represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe so as to improve the performance of the rotor core.
Regarding Claim 14, Borchardt et al. and Wang et al. discloses the motor according to claim 13, wherein an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 discloses the air gap length is between the outer edge 11 of the pole shoe 10 and inner surface of the stator teeth of stator lamination stack 3).
Borchardt et al. and Wang et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion satisfies:
δ(θ)=δ_0∙secθ, wherein δ(θ) represents the air gap length of the second pole shoe portion,
δ_0 represents an air gap length at a position of a symmetry line of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe,
and θ represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe.
However, since Borchardt et al. discloses δ(θ), which represents the air gap length of the second pole portion, and δ_0, which represents an air gap length at a position of symmetry of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe, this can be used to calculate θ, which represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe. This shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Borchardt et al. to satisfy applicant’s claimed function to optimize the performance of the rotor core.
As a result, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Borchardt et al. so that an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion satisfies: δ(θ)=δ_0∙secθ, wherein δ(θ) represents the air gap length of the second pole shoe portion, δ_0 represents an air gap length at a position of a symmetry line of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe, and θ represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe so as to improve the performance of the rotor core.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchardt et al. in view of Barti et al.
Regarding Claim 5, Borchardt et al. discloses the rotor according to claim 3.
Borchardt et al. do not disclose:
wherein the pole shoe further comprises a third pole shoe portion,
and the third pole shoe portion comprises one or more third concave curved portions;
the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the first curved portion;
the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the second pole shoe portion;
and the third pole shoe portion is used to extend a circumferential length of the pole shoe.
Barti et al. discloses:
wherein the pole shoe (2) further comprises a third pole shoe portion (second region 13) (Barti et al. Fig. 3),
and the third pole shoe portion comprises one or more third concave curved portions (Barti et al. Fig. 3 discloses the second region 13 is one concave portion);
the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the first curved portion (third region 14) (Barti et al. Fig. 3);
the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the second pole shoe portion (first region 12) (Barti et al. Fig. 3);
and the third pole shoe portion is used to extend a circumferential length of the pole shoe (Barti et al. Fig. 3).
Borchardt et al. and Barti et al. disclose a rotor core therefore, Barti et al. constitutes prior art. Barti et al. discloses a rotor having a pole shoe with a plurality of portions having a concave portion. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the pole shoe further comprises a third pole shoe portion, and the third pole shoe portion comprises one or more third concave curved portions; the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the first curved portion; and the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the second pole shoe portion; and the third pole shoe portion is used to extend a circumferential length of the pole shoe of Barti et al. for the purpose of having an air gap between a rotor and a stator to be larger to improve conductance for the magnetic flux and the pole shoe.
Regarding Claim 15, Borchardt et al. discloses the motor according to claim 13.
Borchardt et al. do not disclose:
wherein the pole shoe further comprises a third pole shoe portion,
and the third pole shoe portion comprises one or more third concave curved portions;
the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the first curved portion;
the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the second pole shoe portion;
and the third pole shoe portion is used to extend a circumferential length of the pole shoe.
Barti et al. discloses:
wherein the pole shoe (2) further comprises a third pole shoe portion (second region 13) (Barti et al. Fig. 3),
and the third pole shoe portion comprises one or more third concave curved portions (Barti et al. Fig. 3 discloses the second region 13 is one concave portion);
the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the first curved portion (third region 14) (Barti et al. Fig. 3);
the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the second pole shoe portion (first region 12) (Barti et al. Fig. 3);
and the third pole shoe portion is used to extend a circumferential length of the pole shoe (Barti et al. Fig. 3).
Borchardt et al. and Barti et al. disclose a rotor core therefore, Barti et al. constitutes prior art. Barti et al. discloses a rotor having a pole shoe with a plurality of portions having a concave portion. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the pole shoe further comprises a third pole shoe portion, and the third pole shoe portion comprises one or more third concave curved portions; the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the first curved portion; and the third pole shoe portion is tangent to the second pole shoe portion; and the third pole shoe portion is used to extend a circumferential length of the pole shoe of Barti et al. for the purpose of having an air gap between a rotor and a stator to be larger to improve conductance for the magnetic flux and the pole shoe.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchardt et al. in view of Merwerth et al.
Regarding Claim 6, Borchardt et al. discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the wedge further comprises a second wedge portion (middle portion between respective ends of slot closure element 14 connected to respective pole shoes 10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
the second wedge portion is formed between the two first wedge portions (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2).
Borchardt et al. do not disclose:
the second wedge portion comprises at least one concave curved portion.
Merwerth et al. discloses:
the second wedge portion comprises at least one concave curved portion (see below in annotated Merwerth et al. Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
564
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Borchardt et al. and Merwerth et al. discloses rotor cores therefore, Merwerth et al. constitutes prior art. Merwerth et al. discloses a rotor core having a wedge with a concave portion formed between two respective wedge portions connected to respective pole shoes. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second wedge portion comprises at least one concave curved portion of Merwerth et al. for the purpose of relieving a stress in the arc surface of the second wedge portion in the rotor core.
Regarding Claim 16, Borchardt et al. disclose the motor according to claim 11, wherein the wedge further comprises a second wedge portion (middle portion between respective ends of slot closure element 14 connected to respective pole shoes 10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
the second wedge portion is formed between the two first wedge portions (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2).
Borchardt et al. do not disclose:
the second wedge portion comprises at least one concave curved portion.
Merwerth et al. discloses:
the second wedge portion comprises at least one concave curved portion (see above in annotated Merwerth et al. Fig. 3).
Borchardt et al. and Merwerth et al. discloses rotor cores therefore, Merwerth et al. constitutes prior art. Merwerth et al. discloses a rotor core having a wedge with a concave portion formed between two respective wedge portions connected to respective pole shoes. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second wedge portion comprises at least one concave curved portion of Merwerth et al. for the purpose of relieving a stress in the arc surface of the second wedge portion in the rotor core.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchardt et al. in view of Bulatow et al.
Regarding Claim 8, Borchardt et al. discloses the rotor according to claim 7.
Borchardt et al. do not disclose:
wherein when the wedge comprises the plurality of pairs of third wedge portions,
the plurality of pairs of third wedge portions are different in size and/or shape.
Bulatow et al. discloses:
wherein when the wedge (12) comprises the plurality of pairs of third wedge portions (pair of second contact-pressure region 17 and pair of second curved regions 21) (Bulatow et al. Fig. 1),
the plurality of pairs of third wedge portions are different in size and/or shape (Bulatow et al. Fig. 1).
Borchardt et al. and Bulatow et al. disclose rotors therefore, Bulatow et al. constitutes as prior art. Bulatow et al. discloses wedges formed in a plurality of rotor core slots and the wedges have a plurality of pairs of third wedge portions that have different shapes compared to each other. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein when the wedge comprises the plurality of pairs of third wedge portions, and the plurality of pairs of third wedge portions are different in size and/or shape of Bulatow et al. for the purpose of increasing the strength of the wedge and stabilize the rotor upon rotation.
Regarding Claim 10, Borchardt et al. discloses the rotor according to claim 1.
Borchardt et al. do not disclose:
wherein the slot is filled with potting compound;
the potting compound is bonded to the wedge;
the potting compound is bonded to the pole shoe; and the potting compound is bonded to the rotor windings.
Bulatow et al. discloses:
wherein the slot (7) is filled with potting compound (Bulatow et al. Fig. 1 and Para [0020] lines 6 – 7);
the potting compound is bonded to the wedge (12) (Bulatow et al. Fig. 1 and Para [0030] first sentence);
the potting compound is bonded to the pole shoe (Bulatow et al. Fig. 1 and Para [0028] whole paragraph discloses the cavities within the slots are potted completely, which includes potting the cavities near the respective pole shoes ends of pole teeth 4);
and the potting compound is bonded to the rotor windings (5) (Bulatow et al. Fig. 1 and Para [0028] first sentence).
Borchardt et al. and Bulatow et al. disclose rotors therefore, Bulatow et al. constitutes as prior art. Bulatow et al. discloses rotor having a potting compound in slots of a rotor core. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the slot is filled with potting compound; the potting compound is bonded to the wedge; the potting compound is bonded to the pole shoe; and the potting compound is bonded to the rotor windings of Bulatow et al. for the purpose securing the windings to the slots of the rotor core.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchardt et al. in view of Kim et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Borchardt et al. discloses the rotor according to claim 1.
Borchardt et al. do not disclose:
wherein a radial bottom of the wedge body is connected to the rotor core.
Kim et al. discloses:
wherein a radial bottom (171) of the wedge body (172) is connected to the rotor core (150) (Kim et al. Fig. 6).
Borchardt et al. and Kim et al. disclose rotor cores therefore, Kim et al. constitutes prior art. Kim et al. discloses a rotor core having cooling pins placed in the slots of the rotor core with a radial bottom of the cooling pin being connected to the rotor core via a cooling fin mounting portion of the rotor core. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a radial bottom of the wedge body is connected to the rotor core of Kim et al. for the purpose of securing the inner surface of the wedge to the outer surface of the rotor core body.
Claims 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Borchardt et al.
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al. discloses a powertrain (Wang et al. Para [0087] whole paragraph),
comprising a motor (12) (Wang et al. Para [0087] whole paragraph),
a reducer (13) for adjusting a rotation speed of the motor (Wang et al. Para [0087] whole paragraph),
and a controller (MCU) (Wang et al. Para [0003] lines 1 – 2),
wherein the motor comprises at least a stator (motor stator) and a rotor (motor rotor) (Wang et al. Para [0089] whole paragraph),
and the rotor (Wang et al. Para [0089] lines 3 – 5) comprises:
a rotor core (magnetic steel 123) (Wang et al. Fig. 1),
and a rotating shaft (124) (Wang et al. Fig. 1),
the rotor core is sleeved on the rotating shaft (Wang et al. Fig. 1),
wherein the stator is sleeved on an outer circumference of the rotor (Wang et al. Fig. 1),
and the stator comprises a stator core (silicon steel sheet 121) and stator windings (end winding 122) wound around the stator core (Wang et al. Fig. 1).
Wang et al. does not disclose:
a plurality of slots,
wherein each slot comprises one wedge,
and rotor windings are wound in each slot;
and the plurality of slots are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core;
the rotor core comprises a rotor core body and a plurality of pole shoes,
and the plurality of pole shoes are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core body;
the pole shoe comprises a pole shoe body and two symmetrical hook-shaped pole shoe end portions,
wherein the hook-shaped pole shoe end portion becomes thinner along a circumferential direction relative to the pole shoe body and comprises at least one first curved portion;
and the wedge comprises a wedge body and two symmetrical first wedge portions,
each first wedge portion comprises at least one second curved portion,
and each first wedge portion fits one hook-shaped pole shoe end portion of one of the pole shoes.
Borchardt et al. discloses:
a plurality of slots (groove-like pole gaps 13) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
wherein each slot comprises one wedge (groove closure elements 14) (Borchardt et al.),
and rotor windings are wound in each slot (Borchardt et al. Para [0016] line 7);
and the plurality of slots are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1);
the rotor core comprises a rotor core body (yoke ring 7) and a plurality of pole shoes (10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
and the plurality of pole shoes are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core body (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1);
the pole shoe comprises a pole shoe body (middle of pole shoe 10) and two symmetrical hook shaped pole shoe end portions (two ends of pole shoe 10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2),
wherein the hook-shaped pole shoe end portion becomes thinner along a circumferential direction relative to the pole shoe body (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) and comprises at least one first curved portion (see above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2);
and the wedge comprises a wedge body (16) and two symmetrical first wedge portions (respective ends of slot closure element 14 connected to respective pole shoes 10) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
each first wedge portion comprises at least one second curved portion (see above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and each first wedge portion fits one hook-shaped pole shoe end portion of one of the pole shoes (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2).
Wang et al. and Borchardt et al. disclose a rotor therefore, Borchardt et al. constitutes prior art. Borchardt et al. discloses a rotor core having a plurality of slot closing devices in slots of a rotor core formed by adjacent rotor pole teeth. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of slots, wherein each slot comprises one wedge, and rotor windings are wound in each slot; and the plurality of slots are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core; the rotor core comprises a rotor core body and a plurality of pole shoes, and the plurality of pole shoes are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the rotor core body; the pole shoe comprises a pole shoe body and two symmetrical hook-shaped pole shoe end portions, wherein the hook-shaped pole shoe end portion becomes thinner along a circumferential direction relative to the pole shoe body and comprises at least one first curved portion; and the wedge comprises a wedge body and two symmetrical first wedge portions, each first wedge portion comprises at least one second curved portion, and each first wedge portion fits one hook-shaped pole shoe end portion of one of the pole shoes of Borchardt et al. for the purpose of protecting and preventing the rotor windings from being damaged while the rotor rotates.
Regarding Claim 18, Wang et al. and Borchardt et al. disclose the powertrain according to claim 17.
Wang et al. does not disclose:
wherein the first curved portion comprises a first concave curved portion and/or a first convex curved portion;
the second curved portion comprises a second convex curved portion and/or a second concave curved portion;
and the first concave curved portion fits the second convex curved portion,
and/or the first convex curved portion fits the second concave curved portion.
Borchardt et al. discloses:
wherein the first curved portion comprises a first concave curved portion (above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2, the first curved portion is concave) and/or a first convex curved portion (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another);
the second curved portion comprises a second convex curved portion (above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2, the second curved portion is convex) and/or a second concave curved portion (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another);
and the first concave curved portion fits the second convex curved portion (above in annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and/or the first convex curved portion fits the second concave curved portion (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first curved portion comprises a first concave curved portion and/or a first convex curved portion; the second curved portion comprises a second convex curved portion and/or a second concave curved portion; and the first concave curved portion fits the second convex curved portion, and/or the first convex curved portion fits the second concave curved portion of Borchardt et al. for the purpose of having the wedges be mechanically connected to the pole shoes as the rotor rotates.
Regarding Claim 19, Wang et al. and Borchardt et al. disclose the powertrain according to claim 17.
Wang et al. does not disclose:
wherein the pole shoe further comprises a second pole shoe portion,
and the second pole shoe portion is connected to the first curved portion;
and the second pole shoe portion is in an eccentric circular arc shape,
and a center position of the eccentric circular arc shape does not coincide with an axis center of the rotating shaft;
or the second pole shoe portion is in an arc shape of an air gap secant function.
Borchardt et al. discloses:
wherein the pole shoe further comprises a second pole shoe portion (outer edge 11) (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2),
and the second pole shoe portion is connected to the first curved portion (Borchardt et al. Fig. 2);
and the second pole shoe portion is in an eccentric circular arc shape (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1),
and a center position of the eccentric circular arc shape does not coincide with an axis center of the rotating shaft (of annotated Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 shown below);
or the second pole shoe portion is in an arc shape of an air gap secant function (since the wording of the claim is such that there are multiple alternatives in “or” form which makes the alternative forms to be obvious of one another).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the pole shoe further comprises a second pole shoe portion, and the second pole shoe portion is connected to the first curved portion; and the second pole shoe portion is in an eccentric circular arc shape of Borchardt et al., and a center position of the eccentric circular arc shape that is not coincide with an axis center of the rotating shaft of Borchardt et al. for the purpose of reducing vibration to have a stable torque and efficiency of the rotor.
Regarding Claim 20, Wang et al. and Borchardt et al. disclose the powertrain according to claim 19.
Wang et al. does not disclose:
wherein an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion satisfies:
δ(θ)=δ_0∙secθ,
wherein δ(θ) represents the air gap length of the second pole shoe portion,
δ_0 represents an air gap length at a position of a symmetry line of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe,
and θ represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe.
Borchardt et al. discloses:
wherein an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion (Borchardt et al. Fig. 1 discloses the air gap length is between the outer edge 11 of the pole shoe 10 and inner surface of the stator teeth of stator lamination stack 3).
Wang et al. and Borchardt et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion satisfies:
δ(θ)=δ_0∙secθ,
wherein δ(θ) represents the air gap length of the second pole shoe portion,
δ_0 represents an air gap length at a position of a symmetry line of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe,
and θ represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe.
However, since Borchardt et al. discloses δ(θ), which represents the air gap length of the second pole portion, and δ_0, which represents an air gap length at a position of symmetry of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe, this can be used to calculate θ, which represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe. This shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Borchardt et al. to satisfy applicant’s claimed function to optimize the performance of the rotor core.
As a result, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Borchardt et al. so that an air gap length of the second pole shoe portion satisfies: δ(θ)=δ_0∙secθ, wherein δ(θ) represents the air gap length of the second pole shoe portion, δ_0 represents an air gap length at a position of a symmetry line of a pole arc curve in the pole shoe, and θ represents a circumferential angle between a radial line on which the second pole shoe portion is located and the symmetry line of the pole shoe so as to improve the performance of the rotor core.
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 THEODORE L PERKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4629. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 17:00pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached on (571) 272-3560. 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.
/THEODORE L PERKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights