DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-8, 11-13 and 17-18 are amended. Applicant has also submitted amendments to the specification and the drawings. Applicant's amendments appear to overcome the objections and 112 rejections raised in the previous office action. Applicant has amended claim 1 to require "the rotor body is shaped to include an integral flange configured to radially retain second ends of the magnets". Applicant argues Li fails to teach this feature. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires a retention ring "attached" to the rotor body to retain first ends of the magnets and the rotor body including and "integral flange" to radially retain second ends of the magnets. While Applicant attempts to differentiate between an "attached" retention ring and an "integral flange", Li teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Li's retention ring 202 is "attached" to the rotor body and the rotor body 102 is shaped to include an integral flange 204, to respectively retain first and second ends of the magnets. There appears to be no structural difference between the claimed invention and Li's teachings..
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20220181931), hereinafter: “Li”.
In Regard to Claim 1
Li teaches:
An electric machine(100) of a gas-turbine engine(interpreted as intended use), the electric machine comprising:
a stator(101); and
a rotor(102) configured to rotate around the stator(Fig 3), the rotor comprising:
a rotor body(102) having an inner surface(inner radial surface of 116) and an outer surface(outer radial surface of 116);
magnets(118); and
a retention ring(202) attached to the rotor body(visually apparent in Fig 6, 202 is "attached" to the rotor body) and configured to radially retain first ends of the magnets(at 212) to the inner surface of the rotor body(Fig 6; P[0043]), wherein the rotor body(portion 204) is shaped to include an integral flange configured to radially retain second ends(at 214) of the magnets(as is visually apparent in Fig 6, 204 is an integral L-shaped flange of the rotor body 102 which is shaped to retain the second end of the magnet; P[0043]).
In Regard to Claim 7
Li teaches:
The electric machine of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a cross-sectional profile of at least one of the retention ring corresponds to a profile of an axial edge of the magnets(as shown in Fig 5-6, 202 and 204 mate with the edge profiles 212 and 214, respectively, of the magnets; P[0044]).
In Regard to Claim 8
Li teaches:
The electric machine of claim 7(see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the cross-sectional profile defines a flange(axially extending portion of 202,204) that extends partially over an inner surface of the magnets(as shown in Fig 6, the axially extending portion of 202, 204 defines a flange that extends at least partially over an inner surface of the magnets at 212 and 214).
In Regard to Claim 9
Li teaches:
The electric machine of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the magnets are attached to the inner surface of the rotor body(P[0043]).
In Regard to Claim 11
Li teaches:
The electric machine of claim 9(see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein, when attachment of a particular magnet of the magnets to the inner surface of the rotor body has failed, the retention ring retains the particular magnet in the rotor(as stated in P[0054], the magnets may also be attached to the inner surface of the rotor body with an adhesive, as such, when the adhesive fails, the one or more retention rings 202,204 retain the magnets in the rotor).
In Regard to Claim 12
Li teaches:
The electric machine of claim 7(see rejection of claim above), wherein the cross-sectional profile of the retention ring comprises an L shape(visually apparent from Fig 6, the cross sectional profile of 202,204 is an L shape).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Semken et al. (US 9935506), hereinafter: “Semken”.
In Regard to Claim 10
Li teaches:
The electric machine of claim 9(see rejection of claim 9 above),
Li fails to teach:
wherein, when attachment of a particular magnet of the magnets to the inner surface of the rotor body is intact, there is a gap between the particular magnet and a portion of the flange than extends partially over the inner surface of the magnets
Semken teaches:
An analogous magnet retention device(910) wherein, when attachment of a particular magnet(901) of the magnets to the inner surface of the magnet mount(902) is intact, there is a gap between the particular magnet and a portion of the flange(912a) than extends partially over the inner surface of the magnets(as is visually apparent from Fig 67d, there is gap between the magnet 901 and the flange 912a).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Semken to leave a gap between the magnet and the axially extending portion of the flange to increase turbulence and hence the cooling effect on the rotor magnets and stator coils(Col 17, ln. 1-27, Col 50, ln. 45-56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights