DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/436,428, filed on 8 February, 2024, were presented for examination. In a preliminary amendment filed 29 May, 2025, new claims 19-20 were added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 10 June, 2024, and 16 December, 2024 (five separate IDS’s filed on this date) were filed before the mailing date of this Office Action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 11-13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 2, lines 3-5 recite the limitation “extending from the at least one segment to at least another one of segment from an air gap…”
Considering the definition of “segment” from “segmented portions” of the rotor in ¶ 25 and 36 in the specification and the terms “radially extending” (earlier in the claim), and the preposition “from an air gap”, the Examiner simply cannot understand what this limitation means. The only guess he can attempt is that the rotor core comprises a segment, which is where one pair of wedges attaches to the core, and the rotor core comprises another segment, which is where another pair of wedges attaches to the core, and that at least one wedge of a pair extends from one segment toward another segment. This is the interpretation that will be used during examination on the merits below.
With respect to claim 11, line 2 of the claim recites the limitation “along a circumferential axis”. Circumferences are by definition curved and axes are by definition straight. The support for this limitation in ¶ 34 is simply the same terminology and falls short of establishing that the “circumferential axis” is a curve around a longitudinal axis. The Examiner presumes the limitation is referring to the latter interpretation and/or “along a circumference about an axis of rotation”. This makes rational sense and will be used for examination on the merits, but the limitation is not definite in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art, using only the specification as filed, could compare the claim to a prior-art or infringing device to establish with certainty whether said device reads on the claim.
Claim 12 recites in lines 1-2 the limitation "the set of magnets is operably under compression between the at least one pair of wedges". The Examiner notes that claim 1 establishes that all of the magnets of the rotor are the “set” and that a “subset” is what is coupled with a pair of wedges. At least as far as the embodiments shown in the drawings are concerned, a “subset” is just one magnet. Every pair of wedges couples with a single magnet. However, the limitation “the set of magnets is operably under compression between the at least one pair of wedges” would have all of the magnets under compression between a single pair of wedges, which is not the case for any embodiment included in the application as filed. The Examiner, for examination on the merits, will interpret the limitation to mean “the subset of magnets is operably under compression between the at least one pair of wedges".
Claim 13 recites in lines 1-2 the limitation "the pair of wedges comprises at least one interlocking structure that operably engages the set of magnets". The Examiner notes that claim 1 establishes that all of the magnets of the rotor are the “set” and that a “subset” is what is coupled with a pair of wedges. At least as far as the embodiments shown in the drawings are concerned, a “subset” is just one magnet. Every pair of wedges couples with a single magnet. However, the limitation “the pair of wedges comprises at least one interlocking structure that operably engages the set of magnets” would have all of the magnets operably engaging a single pair of wedges, which is not the case for any embodiment included in the application as filed. The Examiner, for examination on the merits, will interpret the limitation to mean “the pair of wedges comprises at least one interlocking structure that operably engages the subset of magnets".
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the sleeve comprising at least one laminated magnetically conductive material and unlaminated magnetically conductive material”. The Examiner cannot find support in the specification of the sleeve comprising both a laminated material and an unlaminated material. The Examiner believes that Applicant intended to type “sleeve comprising at least one of a laminated magnetically conductive material and an unlaminated magnetically conductive material” (i.e. in the alternative) and will use this interpretation for examination on the merits.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “flux barrier is configured so separate the subset of magnets by an air gap…” The Examiner cannot determine from the claim language what the flux barrier is separating the subset(s) of magnets from and what the air gap has to do with it. For examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret this as the central flux barrier separating a subset of magnets from the rib, which is the only interpretation he can find support for in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 114552827 A, reference provided with machine translation herein).
With respect to claim 1, Zhang teaches a rotor of a synchronous motor (see line 1 of the abstract) comprising:
a rotor core [support member 6];
a set of magnets [permanent magnets 3] configured to be operably magnetizable and de-magnetizable (all permanent magnets can be magnetized and demagnetized – further, ¶ 0028 of the translation recites “if the permanent magnet with low coercive force is adopted…” which means that the magnets are more easily magnetized and demagnetized than high coercivity magnets and/or medium-coercivity magnets); and
PNG
media_image1.png
708
1206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one pair of wedges (see the annotated excerpts of figs. 1-3 attached above, wherein the Examiner has labeled one pair, all pairs being part of the overall structure 5 which the reference calls a “core” because it is magnetic iron, as opposed to the present application which calls the support member a “core” apparently because it is in the center of the rotor) coupled with the rotor core [6] (¶ 0024 recites “the rotor core 5 is further provided with a support member 6 on an inner circumference thereof”), each wedge of the at least one pair of wedges being coupled with:
a subset [subset 1, labeled by the Examiner] of the set of magnets [3]; and
a corresponding rib [outer circle] (labeled “rib” by the Examiner and established by ¶ 0025 which recites “a third magnetic barrier 4 is further arranged between the permanent magnet 3 and the outer circle of the rotor core 5…” – it is noted that although the rib is labeled “7” in fig. 3, this is not described in the translation – the rib is evidenced by its having the same gray color as the wedges, as opposed to white which establishes the voids, i.e. flux barriers).
With respect to claim 2/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the rotor core [6] comprises at least one segment (see new annotated excerpt from fig. 1 below, wherein the Examiner has labeled segments), the at least one pair of wedges (also labeled) radially extending from the at least one segment to at least another one of segment from an air gap of the synchronous motor (see rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
PNG
media_image2.png
507
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the rotor core [6] comprises at least one magnetic resistant material (¶ 0024 recites “the support member 6 is made of a diamagnetic material…”).
With respect to claim 5/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one pair of wedges [5] are selected from a group comprising ferrous materials, Cobalt, Nickel, and magnetic composites (the abstract and ¶ 0008 refer to the core, which in Zhang is item 5 and therefore all of the wedges, as “the rotor iron core”, indicating it is made of iron, which is the most ferrous of all ferrous materials).
With respect to claim 7/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one pair of wedges comprises at least one inter flux barrier [first magnetic barrier 1] to operably modify torque ripple and reluctance torque of the synchronous motor (see fig. 1 and ¶ 0024).
With respect to claim 8/7/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the at least one internal flux barrier comprises at least one of prismatic shape, a frustum shape, a truncated pyramidal shape, a cylindrical shape, a conical shape, and a frustoconical shape (each one consists of a quarter-sector of a cylinder, and therefore is “cylindrical” in shape – see fig. 1 and ¶ 0024).
With respect to claim 9/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the at least one pair of wedges [5] (pairs of wedges labeled by the Examiner in the blown-up snapshot of fig. 3 below) radially extends from the rotor core [6] to form a central flux barrier [third magnetic barrier 4] between the subset of magnets [3] and the corresponding rib (labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 3 snapshot below).
Fig. 3 (enlarged)
PNG
media_image3.png
422
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19/9/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the central flux barrier [4] is configured to separate the subset of magnets [3] by an air gap in the synchronous motor {see rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) – whatever the intended meaning of this claim limitation was/is, Zhang teaches it by having the same elements with the same overall configurations and geometries as figs. 2A-2D of the instant application – the air gap is clearly shown in fig. 3}.
With respect to claim 20/9/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 19, and further teaches wherein the central flux barrier [4] comprises at least one of a prismatic shape, a frustum shape, a truncated pyramidal shape, a cylindrical shape, a conical shape, and a frustoconical shape (it comprises a truncated pyramidal shape).
With respect to claim 10/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each wedge in the at least one pair of wedges tapers from a proximal end to a distal end (see new annotated excerpt of fig. 2 attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled the distal end with width D1 and the proximal end with width D2 – although the reference does not mention that the drawings are to-scale, all of the drawings clearly show D1 < D2. In addition to this, each proximal end includes an “extra taper” for good measure, this also having been labeled by the Examiner).
PNG
media_image4.png
337
535
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the corresponding rib (still referring to the fig. 2 excerpt above, wherein the Examiner has labeled the rib’s curve and circumferential axis) of each of the at least one pair of wedges comprises a curve along a circumferential axis (see rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
With respect to claim 14/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one pair of wedges are operably connected to each other (via the bridge).
With respect to claim 15/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches a sleeve [the rib] (see annotated excerpts of figs 1-3 above) on a surface (of the wedge where the rib meets the wedge) of the rotor, the sleeve comprising at least one laminated magnetically conductive material and unlaminated magnetically conductive material (it will be iron, the same substance as the rest of element 5 – see the rejection of fig. 5).
It is noted that in the instant application, ¶ 34 recites (in the last 3 lines) “the sleeve may be the rib (210)”.
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.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Coupart (EP 1796248 A1, provided with translation herein).
With respect to claim 4/3/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 3, but omits teaching wherein the at least one magnetic resistant material comprises at least one of aluminum, steel, composite metals, plastic, and ceramics.
Coupart discloses a rotor [1] for a synchronous machine (see abstract), the rotor comprising permanent magnets [5] each surrounded by pairs of wedges [pole pieces 4], the entire assembly assembled on a core [hub 3] (see ¶ 0039 and the annotated fig. 1 excerpt attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled a pair of wedges).
Coupart teaches wherein the at least one magnetic resistant material comprises at least one of aluminum, steel, composite metals, plastic, and ceramics (¶ 0042 recites “the hub is, for example, made of a non-magnetic material such as aluminum or non-magnetic stainless steel”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing a hub made of aluminum or stainless steel, as taught by Coupart, in order to provide high strength and durability while incorporating low-to-moderate material cost and manufacturing complexity, as is well known in the art.
PNG
media_image5.png
544
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, but omits teaching a sleeve on a surface of the rotor, at least one portion of the sleeve comprising at least one magnetically conductive material or magnetically resistant material.
Coupart discloses a rotor [1] for a synchronous machine (see abstract), the rotor comprising permanent magnets [5] each surrounded by pairs of wedges [pole pieces 4], the entire assembly assembled on a core [hub 3] (still referring to ¶ 0039 and the annotated fig. 1 excerpt attached above).
Coupart teaches a sleeve [envelope] on a surface of the rotor [1], at least one portion of the sleeve [10] comprising at least one magnetically conductive material or magnetically resistant material (it is noted that the claimed range of “magnetically conductive material” and “magnetically resistant material” is infinite for solid substances – for example, ¶ 0046 recites that it could be made of a carbon fiber composite, which has multiple substances in it – necessarily at least one of these is one of magnetically resistant or magnetically conductive).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing a sleeve, as taught by Coupart, in order to hold the magnets (Coupart ¶ 0004).
Claims 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Glaser (US 4,445,062 A).
With respect to claim 6/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the at least one pair of wedges comprise at least one groove, and the rotor core comprises at least one tooth, the at least one groove and the at least one tooth interlocking to operably attached the at least one pair of wedges to the rotor core.
Glaser discloses a rotor [10] for a machine, the rotor comprising permanent magnets [43] each surrounded by pairs of wedges [support members 26, 28, 44, 45, 46, etc..], the entire assembly assembled on a core [12, including tongues 14] (referring to annotated fig. 1 excerpt attached below and col. 2).
Glaser teaches wherein at least one pair of wedges [26/28/44/45/46] comprise at least one groove [47], and the rotor core [12] comprises at least one tooth [undulation 16], the at least one groove [47] and the at least one tooth [16] interlocking to operably attached the at least one pair of wedges [26/28] to the rotor core [12] (col. 2, lines 55-64 recite “when the rotor 10 is assembled, the side 38 of the support member 28 is in contact with the support member… the undulating portions of the support members 28 and 44 form a groove 47 which interlocks around the undulating sides 16 and 18 of the tongues 14…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing an interlocking system with undulating tongues that project out from the core to interlock with grooves provided on the wedges, as taught by Glaser, in order to hold the magnets between the wedges such that they are mechanically joined without the need for high temperature brazing or high pressure bonding methods of joining two dissimilar materials (Glaser col. 1, lines 43-50).
PNG
media_image6.png
317
511
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the set of magnets is operably under compression between the at least one pair of wedges.
Glaser was discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above, and is deemed analogous art. The following discussion will continue referring to the annotated fig. 1 excerpt above.
Glaser teaches wherein the set of magnets [43] is operably under compression between the at least one pair of wedges [26/28/44/45/46] (because of the angle Ɵ, when the motor rotates the magnets will try to migrate outward against the slope and lodge themselves between the wedges via centrifugal force).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing an interlocking system with undulating tongues that project out from the core to interlock with grooves provided on the wedges, as taught by Glaser, in order to hold the magnets between the wedges such that they are mechanically joined without the need for high temperature brazing or high pressure bonding methods of joining two dissimilar materials (Glaser col. 1, lines 43-50).
With respect to claim 13/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the at least one pair of wedges comprises at least one interlocking structure that operably engage the set of magnets. It is noted that the wedges appear to have interlocking structures in the same area that fig. 2d of the instant application shows, but they are not described in such a way that the Examiner can allege for certain that they are what they appear to be.
Glaser was discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above, and is deemed analogous art. The following discussion will continue referring to the annotated fig. 1 excerpt above.
Glaser teaches wherein the at least one pair of wedges [26/28/44/45/46] comprises at least one interlocking structure [the angle Ɵ of wall 82 where the wedges meet the side surface of the magnets] (see fig. 4) that operably engage the set of magnets [43/68] (see the last clause of claim 1 of Glaser).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing an interlocking system with undulating tongues that project out from the core to interlock with grooves provided on the wedges, such that the magnets are radially constrained, as taught by Glaser, in order to hold the magnets between the wedges such that they are mechanically joined without the need for high temperature brazing or high pressure bonding methods of joining two dissimilar materials (Glaser col. 1, lines 43-50).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ko (US 2020/0014289 A1).
With respect to claim 17, Zhang teaches a Variable Flux Memory Motor (VFMM) {see abstract – also, ¶ 0029 recites “as shown in fig. 3, the present embodiment is a 72 slot/6 pole motor including a rotor of the permanent magnet synchronous motor with a reverse salient pole characteristic…”} comprising:
a stator (see ¶ 0029 which recites “the rotor being nested inside the stator…” – the stator is unlabeled in fig. 3 but clearly shown);
a rotor, (see line 1 of the abstract), the rotor comprising:
a rotor core [support member 6];
a set of magnets [permanent magnets 3] configured to be operably magnetizable and de-magnetizable (all permanent magnets can be magnetized and demagnetized – further, ¶ 0028 of the translation recites “if the permanent magnet with low coercive force is adopted…” which means that the magnets are more easily magnetized and demagnetized than high coercivity magnets and/or medium-coercivity magnets); and
PNG
media_image1.png
708
1206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one pair of wedges (see the annotated excerpts of figs. 1-3 attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled one pair, all pairs being part of the overall structure 5 which the reference calls a “core” because it is magnetic iron, as opposed to the present application which calls the support member a “core” apparently because it is in the center of the rotor) extending from the rotor core [6] (¶ 0024 recites “the rotor core 5 is further provided with a support member 6 on an inner circumference thereof”), each wedge of the at least one pair of wedges being coupled with a subset [subset 1, labeled by the Examiner] of the set of magnets [3] and a corresponding rib [outer circle] (labeled “rib” by the Examiner and established by ¶ 0025 which recites “a third magnetic barrier 4 is further arranged between the permanent magnet 3 and the outer circle of the rotor core 5…” – it is noted that although the rib is labeled “7” in fig. 3, this is not described in the translation – the rib is evidenced by its having the same gray color as the wedges, as opposed to white which establishes the voids, i.e. flux barriers).
Zhang omits wherein the rotor is connected to a shaft and wherein the rotor is configured to operably rotate the shaft in response to the stator.
Ko is nearly identical to Zhang except it omits the rib and has a fixed magnet 181a radially outside of the variable magnet 191a where Zhang’s flux barrier is, and so is deemed analogous art.
PNG
media_image7.png
563
441
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ko teaches a rotor [160] connected to a shaft [161] (see fig. 2 above and also ¶ 0061-0062, 0070, and 0080), the rotor [160] configured to operably rotate the shaft in response to the stator [131] (see ¶ 0169-0170 which recite, inter alia, when the magnetic flu generated in the stator 130 passes through…. the variable magnet 191 may be demagnetized… after the demagnetization of the variable magnet 191, the rotor 160 can be rotated by interaction…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing s shaft, as taught by Ko, in order for Zhang’s machine to drive an external element to perform work, as is well known in the art. Zhang’s authors clearly omitted inclusion and discussion of its shaft because they knew that readers of ordinary skill in the art would know the shaft is part of the machine, where it is located, and how it operates, and focused their discussion instead on more salient issues they wished to convey. In no reasonable interpretation would one of ordinary skill in the art expect to operate Zhang’s machine without a shaft.
With respect to claim 18/17, Zhang in view of Ko teaches the motor of claim 17, Zhang further teaches at least one pair of wedges coupled with each other (by the bridge).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figs. 2-3 of CN 112350477 A are seemingly very relevant to the claims of the present application.
PNG
media_image8.png
602
501
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
582
507
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figs. 13A-13C of US 2025/0055334 A1 are relevant to many claims of the present application, although it does not comprise a bridge.
PNG
media_image10.png
673
468
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of CN 109193987 A shows the relevant structure, including a bridge and its corresponding flux barrier, although they are not completely discussed.
PNG
media_image11.png
483
368
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834