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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolomeitsev (US Patent No.: 6025668) in view of Heese et al. (WIPO Document No.: WO 00/03469 A2).
For claim 1, Kolomeitsev discloses the claimed invention comprising: a. a stator (reference numeral 21, figure 3) having a plurality of stator teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b, figure 4) arranged in a plurality of phase groups (see figures 3, 4), each phase group including two adjacent teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b) mechanically joined together through a magnetically permeable bridge (reference numeral 22c, see figure 4); and b. a rotor (reference numeral 23) rotatably mounted within the stator and having a plurality of rotor teeth (reference numeral 24) evenly spaced circumferentially by a pitch angle (see figures 3, 4), and wherein each phase group includes a first tooth and a second tooth (i.e. teeth 22a, 22b being first and second teeth, see figures 3, 4) separated from the first tooth by a separation angle in a direction of rotation of the rotor (i.e. space between teeth 22a, 22b being a separation angle, see figures 3, 4). Kolomeitsev however does not specifically disclose the separation angle being equal to the pitch angle plus a circumferential skewing angle or the pitch angle minus the circumferential skewing angle.
Having a particular angle in between the teeth would merely involve adjusting the angle in between the teeth which is a known skill as exhibited by Heese et al. which disclose different angles in between adjacent teeth (reference numerals 202b, 202c, see figures 3, 4), which would enable a person of ordinary skill to have a separation angle equal to the pitch angle plus a circumferential skewing angle or the pitch angle minus the circumferential skewing angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular angle as disclosed by Heese et al. for the separation angle between the first and second teeth of Kolomeitsev for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 2, Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the circumferential skewing angle being between 0.01 times the pitch angle and 0.25 times the pitch angle. Having a particular skewing angle in between the teeth would merely involve adjusting the angle in between the teeth which is a known skill as exhibited by Heese et al. which disclose different angles in between adjacent teeth (reference numerals 202b, 202c, see figures 3, 4), which would enable a person of ordinary skill to have the circumferential skewing angle between 0.01 times the pitch angle and 0.25 times the pitch angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular angle as disclosed by Heese et al. for the circumferential skewing angle of Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 3, Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the circumferential skewing angle being between 0.05 times the pitch angle and 0.15 times the pitch angle. Having a particular skewing angle in between the teeth would merely involve adjusting the angle in between the teeth which is a known skill as exhibited by Heese et al. which disclose different angles in between adjacent teeth (reference numerals 202b, 202c, see figures 3, 4), which would enable a person of ordinary skill to have the circumferential skewing angle between 0.05 times the pitch angle and 0.15 times the pitch angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular angle as disclosed by Heese et al. for the circumferential skewing angle of Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 5, Kolomeitsev discloses the magnetically permeable bridges (reference numerals 22, 22c) being bridge segments of a circumferentially continuous yoke of the stator (i.e. bridge segments 22 being part of a continuous yoke of stator 21, see figure 3) and adjacent bridge segments are mechanically joined together by intermediate segments (i.e. intermediate segments being segments of stator 21 in between the bridge segments 22, see figure 3), the intermediate segments having a first radial thickness of magnetically permeable material (i.e. first radial thickness being the radial thickness of the portions of stator 21 that are in between the bridge segments 22, see figure 3) and the bridge segments having a second radial thickness of magnetically permeable material (i.e. second radial thickness being the radial thickness of the bridge segments 22, see figure 3), the second radial thickness being greater than the first radial thickness (i.e. the radial thickness of the bridge segments 22 being greater than the thickness of the portions of stator 21 in between the bridge segments 22, see figure 3).
For claim 7, Kolomeitsev discloses the claimed invention comprising: a. a first member (reference numeral 21, figure 3) having a plurality of teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b, figure 4) arranged in a plurality of phase groups (see figures 3, 4), each phase group including two teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b) mechanically joined together through a magnetically permeable bridge (reference numeral 22c, see figure 4); and b. a second member (reference numeral 23) mounted adjacent the first member allowing relative movement between the first and second members (see figures 3, 4), the second member (reference numeral 23) having a plurality of teeth (reference numeral 24) evenly spaced from one another by a pitch in a direction of relative movement between the first and second members (see figures 3, 4), and wherein each phase group includes a first tooth and a second tooth (i.e. teeth 22a, 22b being first and second teeth, see figures 3, 4) which is separated from the first tooth by a phase group tooth spacing in the direction of relative movement between the first and second members (i.e. space between teeth 22a, 22b being a phase group tooth spacing, see figures 3, 4). Kolomeitsev however does not specifically disclose the phase group tooth spacing equal to a whole multiple of the pitch plus a skewing factor or a whole multiple of the pitch minus the skewing factor.
Having a particular spacing between two teeth would merely involve adjusting the angle or spacing in between the teeth which is a known skill as exhibited by Heese et al. which disclose different angles in between adjacent teeth (reference numerals 202b, 202c, see figures 3, 4), which would enable a person of ordinary skill to have a phase group tooth spacing equal to a whole multiple of the pitch plus a skewing factor or a whole multiple of the pitch minus the skewing factor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular angle or spacing as disclosed by Heese et al. for the phase group tooth spacing between the first and second teeth of Kolomeitsev for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 8, Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the whole multiple being a single multiple and the first tooth and the second tooth being adjacent teeth. Having a single multiple of the pitch for the spacing in between teeth would merely involve adjusting the angle or spacing in between the teeth which is a known skill as exhibited by Heese et al. which disclose different angles in between adjacent teeth (reference numerals 202b, 202c, see figures 3, 4), which would enable a person of ordinary skill to have a single multiple for the pitch, and also Kolomeitsev already discloses the first tooth and the second tooth being adjacent teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b, see figure 4 of Kolomeitsev). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the spacing in between the teeth as disclosed by Heese et al. so that a single multiple for the spacing between the first and second teeth is used for Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 9, Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the skewing factor being between 0.05 times the pitch and 0.15 times the pitch. Having a particular skewing factor in between the teeth would merely involve adjusting the angle or spacing in between the teeth which is a known skill as exhibited by Heese et al. which disclose different angles or spacing in between adjacent teeth (reference numerals 202b, 202c, see figures 3, 4), which would enable a person of ordinary skill to have the skewing factor be between 0.05 times the pitch and 0.15 times the pitch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular spacing as disclosed by Heese et al. for the skewing factor of Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 10, Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the skewing factor being between 0.01 times the pitch and 0.25 times the pitch. Having a particular skewing factor in between the teeth would merely involve adjusting the angle or spacing in between the teeth which is a known skill as exhibited by Heese et al. which disclose different angles or spacing in between adjacent teeth (reference numerals 202b, 202c, see figures 3, 4), which would enable a person of ordinary skill to have the skewing factor be between 0.01 times the pitch and 0.25 times the pitch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular spacing as disclosed by Heese et al. for the skewing factor of Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 11, Kolomeitsev discloses the first member being a stator (reference numeral 21, see figure 3), and the second member being a rotor (reference numeral 23) rotatably mounted within the stator (see figure 3).
For claim 12, Kolomeitsev discloses each tooth of each phase group being part of a pair (i.e. teeth 22a, 22b being part of a pair, see figure 4), but Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. however do not specifically disclose the pair including another tooth separated by a whole multiple of the pitch plus a skewing factor or a whole multiple of the pitch minus the skewing factor. Having a particular spacing between two teeth would merely involve adjusting the angle or spacing in between the teeth which is a known skill as exhibited by Heese et al. which disclose different angles in between adjacent teeth (reference numerals 202b, 202c, see figures 3, 4), which would enable a person of ordinary skill to have another tooth separated by a whole multiple of the pitch plus a skewing factor or a whole multiple of the pitch minus the skewing factor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular angle or spacing as disclosed by Heese et al. for the first and second teeth of Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 13, Kolomeitsev already discloses the two teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b) mechanically joined together through the magnetically permeable bridge (reference numerals 22, 22c) including the first tooth and the second tooth (i.e. teeth 22a, 22b being the first tooth and second tooth, see figure 4).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (Foreign Patent Document No.: CN 115296495 A).
For claim 4, Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a tooth geometry of the first tooth being different from a tooth geometry of the second tooth. Having adjacent teeth with differing geometries is a known skill as exhibited by Zhou et al. (reference numerals 31, 32, see figure 6), which when applied to the teeth of Kolomeitsev would disclose a tooth geometry of the first tooth being different from a tooth geometry of the second tooth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have differing geometries as disclosed by Zhou et al. for the first and second tooth of Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Michaelides et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0295456 A1).
For claim 6, Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the yoke including recesses on a radial outer surface between bridge segments. Michaelides et al. disclose recesses (reference numerals 625a', 625b', see figure 13) on a radial outer surface between bridge segments (i.e. recesses 625a', 625b' being formed on a radially outer surface of stator 620' between bridge segments S1', S2', see figure 13), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recesses as disclosed by Michaelides et al. for the radial outer surface between bridge segments of Kolomeitsev in view of Heese et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolomeitsev (US Patent No.: 6025668) in view of Zhou et al. (Foreign Patent Document No.: CN 115296495 A).
For claim 14, Kolomeitsev discloses the claimed invention comprising: a. a first member (reference numeral 21, figure 3) having a plurality of teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b, figure 4) arranged in a plurality of phase groups (see figures 3, 4), each phase group including two teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b) mechanically joined together through a magnetically permeable bridge (reference numeral 22c, see figure 4); and b. a second member (reference numeral 23) mounted adjacent the first member allowing relative movement between the first and second members (see figures 3, 4), the second member (reference numeral 23) having a plurality of teeth (reference numeral 24) evenly spaced from one another by a pitch in a direction of relative movement between the first and second members (pitch represented by the spacing in between teeth 24, see figures 3, 4). Kolomeitsev however does not specifically disclose a phase group of the plurality of phase groups including teeth of differing geometries.
Having adjacent teeth with differing geometries is a known skill as exhibited by Zhou et al. (reference numerals 31, 32, see figure 6), which when applied to the teeth of Kolomeitsev would disclose a phase group of the plurality of phase groups including teeth of differing geometries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have differing geometries as disclosed by Zhou et al. for the teeth in a phase group of Kolomeitsev for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 15, Kolomeitsev discloses the first member being a stator (reference numeral 21, see figure 3), and the second member being a rotor (reference numeral 23) rotatably mounted within the stator (see figure 3), and the pitch being a rotor pitch angle (i.e. the spacing in between teeth 24 of the rotor 23 being the rotor pitch angle, see figure 4).
For claim 16, Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. disclose the claimed invention except for each phase group including teeth of differing geometries. Having adjacent teeth with differing geometries is a known skill as exhibited by Zhou et al. (reference numerals 31, 32, see figure 6), which when applied to the teeth of Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. would disclose each phase group including teeth of differing geometries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have differing geometries as disclosed by Zhou et al. for the teeth in a phase group of Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 17, Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the teeth of differing geometries being adjacent teeth. Zhou et al. already disclose adjacent teeth having differing geometries (reference numerals 31, 32, see figure 6), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have differing geometries as disclosed by Zhou et al. for the adjacent teeth of Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 18, Kolomeitsev discloses the phase group including a first tooth and a second tooth (i.e. teeth 22a, 22b constituting the first tooth and second tooth, see figure 4), but Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. however do not specifically disclose a circumferential width of an inner end of a core of the first tooth being different from a circumferential width of an inner end of a core of the second tooth. Zhou et al. further disclose a circumferential width of an inner end of a core of the first tooth being different from a circumferential width of an inner end of a core of the second tooth (i.e. a circumferential width of first tooth 32 being different from a circumferential width of the second tooth 31, see figure 6), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different circumferential widths as disclosed by Zhou et al. for the first and second teeth of Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 19, Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the circumferential width of the inner end of the core of the second tooth being greater than the circumferential width of the inner end of the core of the first tooth. Zhou et al. further disclose the circumferential width of the inner end of the core of the second tooth being greater than the circumferential width of the inner end of the core of the first tooth (i.e. the circumferential width of second tooth 31 being greater than the circumferential width of the first tooth 32, see figure 6), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the circumferential width of the second tooth be greater than that of the first tooth as disclosed by Zhou et al. for the first and second teeth of Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Aoyama (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2013/0193783 A1).
For claim 20, Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the phase group including a first tooth with a core having a first radial extent and a second tooth with a core having a second radial extent that is greater than the first radial extent. Having different radial extents for the first tooth and second tooth is a known skill as exhibited by Aoyama which discloses two teeth (reference numerals 15L, 15S, see figure 11) having different radial lengths (reference numerals xS, xL indicating different radial lengths for teeth 15L, 15S, see figure 11), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different radial lengths as disclosed by Aoyama so that the second tooth would have a second radial extent that is greater than the first radial extent of the first tooth for Kolomeitsev in view of Zhou et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolomeitsev (US Patent No.: 6025668) in view of Michaelides et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0295456 A1).
For claim 21, Kolomeitsev discloses the claimed invention comprising: a. a first member (reference numeral 21, figure 3) having a plurality of teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b, figure 4) extending from a first side of the first member (see figures 3, 4), the plurality of teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b) arranged in a plurality of phase groups (see figures 3, 4), each phase group including two teeth (reference numerals 22a, 22b) mechanically joined together through a magnetically permeable bridge (reference numeral 22c, see figure 4), the magnetically permeable bridges forming bridge segments (reference numeral 22c) of a continuous back portion of the first member (see figures 3, 4), and adjacent bridge segments mechanically joined together by intermediate segments (i.e. portions of component 21 in between bridge segments 22c, also see figure 3 showing portions of component 21 in between reference numerals C2, A1, B1, etc.), and b. a second member (reference numeral 23) mounted adjacent the first member allowing relative movement between the first and second members (see figures 3, 4), the second member (reference numeral 23) having a plurality of teeth (reference numeral 24) evenly spaced from one another by a pitch in a direction of relative movement between the first and second members (see figures 3, 4), and wherein the intermediate segments (i.e. portions of component 21 in between bridge segments 22c, also see figure 3 showing portions of component 21 in between reference numerals C2, A1, B1, etc.) have a first thickness of magnetically permeable material (see figure 3) and the bridge segments (reference numeral 22c) have a second thickness of magnetically permeable material (see figures 3, 4), and the second thickness being greater than the first thickness (i.e. portions C2, A1, B1, etc. having a radial thickness that is greater than that of component 21 in between portions C2, A1, B1, etc., see figure 3). Kolomeitsev however does not specifically disclose whereby a surface of the continuous back portion of the first member includes recesses between bridge segments, the recesses arranged at a second side of the first member opposite the first side from which the plurality of teeth extend.
Michaelides et al. disclose recesses (reference numerals 625b', 627, see figure 13) formed on a surface of the continuous back portion between bridge segments (reference numerals S1', S2', see figure 13), the recesses (reference numerals 625b', 627) arranged at a second side of the first member (i.e. radially outer surface of stator components 627) opposite the first side from which the plurality of teeth extend (i.e. first side being where teeth 622 extend, see figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recesses between bridge segments as disclosed by Michaelides et al. at the second side of the first member of Kolomeitsev for predictably providing desirable configuration for optimizing the performance of the device.
For claim 22, Kolomeitsev discloses the first member being a stator (reference numeral 21) and the second member being a rotor (reference numeral 23) rotatably mounted within the stator (see figure 3), and the continuous back member (reference numeral 21) is a continuous yoke (see figure 3), and the first side of the first member is an inner side (i.e. the radially inner surface of stator 21 can be the first side, figure 3) and the second side of the first member is an outer side (i.e. the radially outer surface of stator 21 can be the second side, see figure 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references disclose embodiments of rotor and stator pole configurations: US 8803376 B2 (Nashiki; Masayuki et al.), US 6285104 B1 (Nashiki; Masayuki), US 6211593 B1 (Nashiki; Masayuki), US 4970423 A (Tamae; Hiroaki et al.), US 20100123426 A1 (Nashiki; Masayuki et al.), WO 2022057625 A1 (ZHANG, TAO et al.), CN 112332709 B (YANG, Ze-bin et al.), CN 112087067 B (ZHANG, TAO et al.), CN 212572338 U (WANG, Zi-xin et al.), CN 112332709 A (YANG, Ze-bin et al.), CN 110572001 B (KOU, Bao-quan et al.), CN 110784030 A (OZAWA, HIDETAKA), CN 110572001 A (KOU, Bao-quan et al.), CN 108847725 A (ZHANG, TAO et al.), KR 101255960 B1 (JUNG SUNG TAI et al.), GB 2308018 A (KOLOMEITSEV SERQUEI).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX W MOK whose telephone number is (571)272-9084. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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.
/ALEX W MOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights