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 1-4, 6 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (JP 2011015476 A, the machine translation of which has been provided) in view of Hao et al. (CN 204992827 U).
RE claim 1, Ishikawa teaches a rotor 2 for a rotating electrical machine 1 (Figs.1-5), the rotor 2 comprising a rotor body 21 having an axis of rotation (X2) and at least one pair of circumferentially-adjacent pole modules 4, each pole module comprising a main body 32 and a permanent magnet 3, wherein at least one of each pair of pole modules 4 is rotatable relative to the rotor body between a first position for normal operation where the magnetic fields 22 generated by the permanent magnets 3 of each pair of pole modules extend outside the rotor body 21 (Fig.6) and a second position for fault operation (intended use) where the magnetic fields 22 generated by the permanent magnets 3 of each pair of pole modules do not extend outside the rotor body 21 (Fig.5 and translation page 7).
The limitation “for fault operation” has been considered. It is noted that because Ishikawa disclosed the same structure as claimed, such structure is capable of performing the same during operation.
Examiner notes MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
Ishikawa does not teach each pole module comprises a rotating feature provided on at least one axial end of the pole module, the rotating feature serving as an attachment point for an external tool to be fitted to the pole module, thereby allowing rotation of the pole module relative to the rotor body.
Hao teaches each pole module comprises a rotating feature 4 provided on at least one axial end of the pole module (Fig.1), the rotating feature 4 serving as an attachment point for an external tool to be fitted to the pole module, thereby allowing rotation of the pole module relative to the rotor body, sch that it is convenient for matching tool to realize the rotation of the rotary magnetic pole assembly (see translation page 2, 3rd ¶).
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 Ishikawa by having each pole module comprises a rotating feature provided on at least one axial end of the pole module, the rotating feature serving as an attachment point for an external tool to be fitted to the pole module, thereby allowing rotation of the pole module relative to the rotor body, as taught by Hao, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa further teaches the at least one of each pair of pole modules 4 is rotatable about an axis (X3) parallel with the axis of rotation (X2) of the rotor body 2 (Fig.1).
RE claim 3/1, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa further teaches the rotor body 21 includes a plurality of axially-extending openings (where magnet 3 inserted), each opening receiving a corresponding pole module 4 (Figs.1-5).
RE claim 4/1, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa further teaches the main body 21 of each pole module has a solid or laminated construction (Fig.1 and translation page 3, 2nd ¶).
RE claim 6/1, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa further teaches both of each pair of pole modules 4 are rotatable relative to the rotor body 21 (Fig.2).
RE claim 9/1, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa further teaches each pole module includes one or more lifting features and/or one or more rotating features 33 (rotation bearing 33, see Fig.1).
RE claim 10/9, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa further teaches a lifting feature and/or a rotating feature 33 is provided on at least one axial end of each pole module 4 (see Fig.1).
RE claim 11/1, Ishikawa has been discussed above. Ishikawa does not teach when the at least one of each pair of pole modules is in the first position for normal operation, the permanent magnets of each pair of pole modules are arranged so that the facing pole surfaces have the same polarity, and when the at least one of each pair of pole modules is in the second position for fault operation, the facing pole surfaces have opposite polarity.
Hao teaches each pair of pole modules is in the first position for normal operation (Figs.1, 2), the permanent magnets 1 of each pair of pole modules are arranged so that the facing pole surfaces have the same polarity (Fig.1), and when the at least one of each pair of pole modules is in the second position for fault operation, the facing pole surfaces have opposite polarity (Fig.2) so as to directly form a magnetic field loop and fixed magnetic pole in the rotor iron core, the whole rotor is not magnetic, avoids the working process due to interference in the field, possibly caused by inconvenient operation and potential safety hazard, has simple operation, low cost, improves the production efficiency and safety is ensured (see translation page 2).
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 Ishikawa by having the at least one of each pair of pole modules is in the first position for normal operation, the permanent magnets of each pair of pole modules are arranged so that the facing pole surfaces have the same polarity, and when the at least one of each pair of pole modules is in the second position for fault operation, the facing pole surfaces have opposite polarity, as taught by Hao, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 12/1, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa further teaches a rotating electrical machine comprising a rotor according to claim 1, and a stator 5 spaced apart from the rotor 2 by an air gap (Figs.1, 3).
RE claim 13, Ishikawa teaches a method of operating a rotor 2 (Figs.1-6) for a rotating electrical machine 1 in response to a detected fault, the rotor comprising a rotor body 21 having an axis of rotation (X2) and at least one pair of circumferentially-adjacent pole modules 4, each pole module 4 comprising a main body 32 and a permanent magnet 3, the method comprising: rotating at least one of each pair of pole modules 4 from a first position where the magnetic fields 22 generated by the permanent magnets 3 of each pair of pole modules extend outside the rotor body 21 (Fig.6) to a second position where the magnetic fields 22 generated by the permanent magnets 3 of each pair of pole modules do not extend outside the rotor body 21 (Fig.5).
The limitation “response to a detected fault has been considered. It is noted that because Ishikawa disclosed the same structure as claimed, such structure is capable of performing the same during operation.
Examiner notes MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
Ishikawa does not teach each pole module comprises a rotating feature provided on at least one axial end of the pole module, the rotating feature serving as an attachment point for an external tool to be fitted to the pole module, thereby allowing rotation of the pole module relative to the rotor body.
Hao teaches each pole module comprises a rotating feature 4 provided on at least one axial end of the pole module (Fig.1), the rotating feature 4 serving as an attachment point for an external tool to be fitted to the pole module, thereby allowing rotation of the pole module relative to the rotor body, sch that it is convenient for matching tool to realize the rotation of the rotary magnetic pole assembly (see translation page 2, 3rd ¶).
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 Ishikawa by having each pole module comprises a rotating feature provided on at least one axial end of the pole module, the rotating feature serving as an attachment point for an external tool to be fitted to the pole module, thereby allowing rotation of the pole module relative to the rotor body, as taught by Hao, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 14/13 is rejected for similar reason as claim 11/1.
RE claim 15, Ishikawa teaches a method of assembling a rotor 2 (Fig.1) for a rotating electrical machine 1 (Figs.1-6) comprising: providing a rotor body 21 with a pair of axially-extending, circumferentially-adjacent openings (where pole 4 inserted); providing a pair of pre-formed pole modules 4, each pole module 4 comprising a main body 32 and a permanent magnet 3; and inserting each pole module 4 into a corresponding opening in the rotor body 21; wherein at least one of the pair of pole modules 4 is rotatable between a first position for normal operation where the magnetic fields 22 generated by the permanent magnets 3 of the pair of pole modules 4 extend outside the rotor body 21 (Fig.6) and a second position for fault operation (functional language and/or intend use) where the magnetic fields generated by the permanent magnets of the pair of pole modules do not extend outside the rotor body 21 (Fig.5).
Ishikawa does not teach each pole module comprises a rotating feature provided on at least one axial end of the pole module, the rotating feature serving as an attachment point for an external tool to be fitted to the pole module, thereby allowing rotation of the pole module relative to the rotor body.
Hao teaches each pole module comprises a rotating feature 4 provided on at least one axial end of the pole module (Fig.1), the rotating feature 4 serving as an attachment point for an external tool to be fitted to the pole module, thereby allowing rotation of the pole module relative to the rotor body, sch that it is convenient for matching tool to realize the rotation of the rotary magnetic pole assembly (see translation page 2, 3rd ¶).
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 Ishikawa by having each pole module comprises a rotating feature provided on at least one axial end of the pole module, the rotating feature serving as an attachment point for an external tool to be fitted to the pole module, thereby allowing rotation of the pole module relative to the rotor body, as taught by Hao, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Hao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Angrick et al. (US 2020/0127510 A1).
RE claim 5/1, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa does not teach the main body of each pole module includes an axially-extending opening for receiving the permanent magnet.
Angrick teaches each pole module (2-9) includes an axially-extending opening for receiving the permanent magnet (A) (see Fig.1 and ¶ 77 for a part of pole contain rectangular magnet which is in pole arrangement). This has the advantage that the magnetic flux can be guided optimally already inside the pole arrangement, and short-circuits of the magnetic field lines (flux leakage) can be avoided or reduced (¶ 77).
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 Ishikawa in view of Hao by having the main body of each pole module includes an axially-extending opening for receiving the permanent magnet, as taught by Angrick, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 7/1, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa does not teach the other one of each pair of pole modules is fixed relative to the rotor body.
Angrick teaches the other one (3, 4, 7, 8) of each pair of pole modules (3, 4, 7, 8), (2, 5, 6, 9) and is fixed relative to the rotor body 10 (see Figs.1, 2). Thus the relative position of the at least one pole arrangement to the rotor body can easily be delimited or fixed or established (¶ 19).
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 Ishikawa in view of Hao by having the other one of each pair of pole modules is fixed relative to the rotor body, as taught by Angrick, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 8/1, Ishikawa in view of Hao has been discussed above. Ishikawa does not teach the at least one of each pair of pole modules that is rotatable has a cylindrical outer surface and is received in an opening in the rotor body having a cylindrical inner surface.
Angrick teaches each pair of pole modules that is rotatable has a cylindrical outer surface and is received in an opening in the rotor body having a cylindrical inner surface (see ¶ 110 for movement mechanism is formed as hollow cylinder. It is noted that the pole module also has circular cross section), doing so allows the movement mechanism has its own axis of revolution or rotation axis, wherein the movement mechanism is configured so as to be rotationally symmetrical to its rotation axis.
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 Ishikawa in view of Hao by having one of each pair of pole modules that is rotatable has a cylindrical outer surface and is received in an opening in the rotor body having a cylindrical inner surface, as taught by Angrick, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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
Prosecution Insights