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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 11/06/2025, with respect to claim 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 Rejection of claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 11/06/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 of claim(s) 1-2, 5, 13, and 16-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li (WO2007132768A1).
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 1-2, 5, 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Li (WO2007132768A1) in view of Mitcham (US2004245883A1).
Claim 1
Li teaches: A motor comprising: a rotor (20, 30) comprising a plurality of magnet segments (22, 32) arranged on a frame (50) of the rotor (20, 30), the rotor (20, 30) defining an internal cavity radially inward from the plurality of magnet segments (32); an output shaft (4) operably coupled to the rotor (20, 30); and a stator (10) comprising a support structure (14) and at least one winding wrapped about a plurality of stator teeth (12, 13) comprising inner teeth (13) arranged on a radially inward side of the support structure (14) and outer teeth (12) arranged on a radially outward side of the support structure (14), the stator (10) arranged within the internal cavity of the rotor (20, 30);
PNG
media_image1.png
550
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1002
1056
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
888
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li is silent to teaching:
An aircraft electric motor
wherein at least one of the inner teeth the outer teeth, or the support structure is formed from a non-magnetic material with embedded magnetic wires.
As for limitation I, the clause is recited in the preamble recitations of the claim. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “An aircraft electric motor” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
As for limitation II, Mitcham conversely teaches a stator core (2, serving as the support structure) comprised of a highly conductive material (11) formed from copper or aluminum or a similar material (para. 0023). The stator core (2) also comprises teeth (14) disposed circumferentially along the device. The non-magnetic material (copper) has a thickness of 0.025mm (25 microns). The stator further comprises slots (19) through which conductive wires (6) are embedded in.
PNG
media_image4.png
812
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the stator comprises at least one of the inner teeth, the outer teeth, or the support structure is formed from a non-magnetic material with embedded magnetic wires. The nonmagnetic material forming method taught by Mitcham would be advantageous to implement as it would help improve heat conduction from the wires and more particularly through the core teeth between the wires for greater temperature control (para. 0019).
Claim 2/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 1, wherein each of the inner teeth (13), the outer teeth (12), and the support structure (14) are formed from a non-magnetic material (copper; Mitcham) with embedded magnetic wires.
Claim 5/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 1, wherein the embedded magnetic wires comprise a cobalt steel (cobalt iron alloy, para. 0010; Mitcham).
Claim 13/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 1, wherein the non-magnetic material (11; Mitcham) with embedded magnetic wires (6; Mitcham) is formed as a stator (10) structure having a rectangular cross-section (as illustrated in Mitcham’s Fig. 2).
Claim 16
Li teaches: An electric motor; at least one electrical device; And a power distribution system configured to distribute power from the at least one electric motor to the at least one electrical device, wherein the at least one aircraft electric motor comprises: a rotor (20, 30) comprising a plurality of magnet segments (22, 32) arranged on a frame (50) of the rotor (20, 30), the rotor (20, 30) defining an internal cavity radially inward from the plurality of magnet segments (22, 32); an output shaft (4) operably coupled to the rotor (20, 30); and a stator (10) comprising a support structure (14) and at least one winding wrapped about a plurality of stator teeth (12, 13) comprising inner teeth (13) arranged on a radially inward side of the support structure (14) and outer teeth (12) arranged on a radially outward side of the support structure (14), the stator (10) arranged within the internal cavity of the rotor (20, 30);
Li is silent to teaching:
An aircraft comprising: at least one aircraft electric motor;
wherein at least one of the inner teeth (13), the outer teeth (12), or the support structure (14) is formed from a non-magnetic material with embedded magnetic wires.
As for limitation I, the clause is recited in the preamble recitations of the claim. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “An aircraft electric motor” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
As for limitation II, Mitcham conversely teaches a stator core (2, serving as the support structure) comprised of a highly conductive material (11) formed from copper or aluminum or a similar material (para. 0023). The stator core (2) also comprises teeth (14) disposed circumferentially along the device. The non-magnetic material (copper) has a thickness of 0.025mm (25 microns). The stator further comprises slots (19) through which conductive wires (6) are embedded in.
PNG
media_image4.png
812
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified The electric motor of claim 1 such that the stator comprises at least one of the inner teeth, the outer teeth, or the support structure is formed from a non-magnetic material with embedded magnetic wires. The nonmagnetic material forming method taught by Mitcham would be advantageous to implement as it would help improve heat conduction from the wires and more particularly through the core teeth between the wires for greater temperature control (para. 0019).
Claim 17/16
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft of claim 16, wherein each of the inner teeth (13), the outer teeth (12), and the support structure (14) are formed from a non-magnetic material (copper; Mitcham) with embedded magnetic wires (6; Mitcham).
Claim 18/16
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft of claim 16, wherein the embedded magnetic wires (6; Mitcham) comprise at least one of a silicon steel or a cobalt steel (cobalt iron alloy, para. 0010; Mitcham).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Mitcham in view of Hibino (US5172020A).
Claim 3/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 1, but is silent to: wherein the embedded magnetic wires comprise a silicon steel.
Hibino conversely teaches an electric motor (Fig. 1) comprised of embedded magnetic wires (9, col. 3, lines 13-20) disposed in slots (5), and a silicon steel sheet of a stator core (8) made up of 3.5% silicon (col. 3, lines 50-60). The embedded wires (9) comprise silicone steel by default as a result of being embedded in the silicone steel sheets of stator core (8).
PNG
media_image5.png
732
808
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the embedded magnetic wires comprise a silicon steel. Manufacturing a support structure to be made of silicone steel is valuable as silicone steel maintains high magnetic permeability thus improving efficiency of an electric motor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by, Mitcham and Hibino in view of Amano (US 20090189471 A1).
Claim 4/3/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 3, but is silent to: wherein the silicon steel has a composition of one of 3.2% silicon steel or 6.5% silicon steel.
Amano conversely teaches an electric motor (20) comprising silicon steel sheets, wherein the silicon steel sheet has a composition of 6.5wt% of silicon (para. 0119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the silicon steel has a composition of one of 3.2% silicon steel or 6.5% silicon steel. Opting for a silicon sheet with a higher silicon content of 6.5% as taught by Amano would be advantageous over Hibino’s 3.5% content as a higher silicon content would increase electrical resistivity, which reduces eddy current losses and consequently, total core losses.
Claim 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Mitcham in view of Perry (US2014035426A1).
Claim 6/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 1, but is silent to: wherein the non-magnetic material comprises at least one of a ceramic or a potting material.
Perry conversely teaches a stator comprising of a conductor (67) for a wire embedded in a stator core (28), wherein a ceramic covering (110) is applied to the conductors (67).
PNG
media_image6.png
624
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the non-magnetic material comprises a ceramic. Note that the non-magnetic material comprises the ceramic by way of comprising the wire which would comprise the ceramic. An implementation of ceramic covered wires would be advantageous as ceramic can withstand significantly high temperatures which is crucial in motors, which generate considerable heat during operation.
Claim 19/16
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft of claim 16, but is silent to: wherein the non-magnetic material comprises at least one of a ceramic or a potting material.
Perry conversely teaches a stator comprising of a conductor (67) for a wire embedded in a stator core (28), wherein a ceramic covering (110) is applied to the conductors (67).
PNG
media_image6.png
624
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 16 such that the non-magnetic material comprises at least one or a ceramic or a potting material. An implementation of ceramic covered wires would be advantageous as ceramic can withstand significantly high temperatures which is crucial in motors, which generate considerable heat during operation.
Claims 8-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Mitcham in view of Nagai (US2013008688A1).
Claim 8/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 1, but is silent to: wherein the wires are flat strips of magnetic material.
Nagai conversely teaches a flat stripped magnetic wire (100) having a coating (10) thickness of 50 microns or less (para. 0014).
PNG
media_image7.png
440
324
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the wires are flat strips of magnetic material. Employing flat stripped wires to a stators would be advantageous as flat cables, due to their design, can be packed more tightly together than round cables, potentially leading to better space utilization.
Claim 9/8/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 8, wherein the flat strips (as taught by Nagai) have a thickness of between 20 μm and 100 μm (less than 50 microns as taught by Nagai).
Claim 20/16
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft of claim 16, but is silent to: wherein the wires are one of (i) flat strips of magnetic material or (ii) wires having a circular cross-sectional profile.
Nagai conversely teaches a flat stripped magnetic wire (100) having a coating (10) thickness of 50 microns or less (para. 0014).
PNG
media_image7.png
440
324
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the wires are one of (i) flat strips of magnetic material or (ii) wires having a circular cross-sectional profile. Employing flat stripped wires to a stators would be advantageous as flat cables, due to their design, can be packed more tightly together than round cables, potentially leading to better space utilization.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified Mitcham in view of Klaus (US20040031620A1).
Claim 10/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 1, but is silent to: wherein the wires have a circular cross- sectional profile.
Klaus conversely teaches a wire (40) equipped for a motor, wherein the wire (40) has a circular cross-sectional profile and a diameter of 20 to 80 micrometers (para. 0004).
PNG
media_image8.png
540
390
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the wires have a circular cross-sectional profile. A circular cross-sectional profile offers advantages for wires, including ease of manufacturing, flexibility, and a uniform surface for insulation.
Claim 11/10/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 10, wherein the wires have a diameter of between 20 μm and 100 μm (20 to 80 microns as taught by Klaus).
Claim 12/10/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 10, wherein the wires have a diameter ( at least 20 microns as taught by Klaus) of 80% or less than a thickness (25 microns as taught by Mitcham) of the non-magnetic material (11; Mitcham).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Mitcham in view of Rockelein (US 8058754 B2).
Claim 14/13
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 13, but is silent to: wherein the rectangular cross-section has a width of 10 mm and a height of between 0.5 mm and 10 mm.
Rockelein conversely teaches a stator (2) with a rectangular cross-section comprising a leg having a width in the range of 10 mm to 40 mm and height of a surface perpendicular to the axial direction in a range of 2.5mm to 5.5mm (Claim 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the rectangular cross-section has a width of 10 mm and a height of between 0.5 mm and 10 mm. Modifying the stator to comprise a specific range such as that of the limitation would be advantageous to constrain in order to optimize space requirements of the electric motor that the stator is comprised in.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Mitcham in view of Yongfeng (CN103537683A).
Claim 15/1
Li as modified by Mitcham teaches: The aircraft electric motor of claim 1, wherein the non-magnetic material with embedded magnetic wires is formed as a stator (10) structure that comprises wires having a green density of 90% or less of the formed stator (10) structure.
Yongfeng conversely teaches a method for manufacturing a stator using a powder metallurgy process to manufacture a stator core with a green density of approximately 7.4g/cm^3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the non-magnetic material with embedded magnetic wires (310) comprises wires having a green density of 90% or less of a respective formed structured. Employing a low green density to the wires would be advantageous as a lower green density means the powder particles are less tightly packed initially, which would make the wire more compressible and easier to shape or bend during manufacturing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21
Claim 21 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As for claim 21, Li teaches: An electric motor comprising: a rotor (20, 30) comprising an outer portion (30) and an inner portion (20) arranged radially outwardly and inwardly respectively, an output shaft (4) operably coupled to the rotor (20, 30); and a stator (10) arranged between the outer portion (30) and the inner portion (20) of the rotor (20, 30) with an airgap therebetween, the stator (10) comprising a support structure (14) and at least one winding (15) wrapped about a plurality of stator teeth (12, 13) comprising inner teeth (13) arranged on a radially inward side of the support structure (14) and outer teeth (12) arranged on a radially outward side of the support structure (14);
Li is silent to teaching:
An aircraft electric motor
wherein at least one of the inner teeth and the outer teeth are formed from a non-magnetic material with embedded magnetic wires; wherein the wires are flat strips of magnetic material.
As for limitation I, the clause is recited in the preamble recitations of the claim. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “An aircraft electric motor” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
As for limitation II, Mitcham conversely teaches a stator core (2, serving as the support structure) comprised of a highly conductive material (11) formed from copper or aluminum or a similar material (para. 0023). The stator core (2) also comprises teeth (14) disposed circumferentially along the device. The non-magnetic material (copper) has a thickness of 0.025mm (25 microns). The stator further comprises slots (19) through which conductive wires (6) are embedded in.
PNG
media_image4.png
812
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric motor of claim 1 such that the stator comprises at least one of the inner teeth, the outer teeth, or the support structure is formed from a non-magnetic material with embedded magnetic wires. The nonmagnetic material forming method taught by Mitcham would be advantageous to implement as it would help improve heat conduction from the wires and more particularly through the core teeth between the wires for greater temperature control (para. 0019).
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, alone or in obvious combination, inter alia:
wherein the outer portion and inner portion are parts of a substantially U-shaped magnet assembly including a plurality of U-shaped magnet segments arranged on a frame of the rotor;
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED F SECK whose telephone number is (571)272-4638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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 at (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.
/AHMED F SECK/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834