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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least three different spacings or distances between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets” in claims 1 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claim 1 recited: “there are at least three different spacings or distances between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets”, such limitation is new matter which was not disclosed in the original disclosure as filed.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 11-20 are rejected for similar reason as claims 1-10.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 14, 15, 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 and 20 of co-pending Application No. Application No. 18/489,088 in view of Sun et al. (US 20180159392 A1)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the conflicting application teaches every aspect of the instant application claim except for that there are at least three different spacings or distances between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets.
Sun teaches at least three different spacings or distances (D3, D4 and D5, see annotated Fig.7 below) between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets (see Fig.7). By selecting appropriate radial distances and rib distances for each segment, the PM motor may be configured to have a lower overall ripple torque than a symmetrically designed motor (¶ 50).
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 the instant application by having at least three different spacings or distances between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets, as taught by Sun, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Instant Application (18/489,084)
Conflicting Application (18/489,088)
1. An electric motor system for an electrified vehicle, the electric motor system comprising:
a permanent magnet motor (PMM) including:
a hollow cylindrical stator defining a circular inner portion with a plurality of slots, defined between a respective plurality of ferromagnetic teeth, and having a plurality of electromagnetic coils arranged in the plurality of slots, respectively; and
a cylindrical rotor disposed within the stator and defining a circular outer portion having N pairs of permanent magnets arranged thereabout to define N rotor poles, respectively,
wherein at least one pair of the N pairs of permanent magnets is asymmetrically staggered or offset relative a symmetric N pole positioning, and
wherein N is an even integer greater than or equal to four; and
a controller configured to control the PMM to mitigate or eliminate magnetic cogging.
4. The electric motor system of claim 1, wherein the symmetric N pole positioning is every 360/N degrees.
5. The electric motor system of claim 1, wherein at least two pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
6. The electric motor system of claim 5, wherein the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets include circularly opposed pairs.
8. The electric motor system of claim 5, wherein the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset by different amounts relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
9. The electric motor system of claim 1, wherein the stator is configured such that the stator has a plurality of electromagnetic coils with one of the plurality of ferromagnetic teeth therebetween the electromagnetic coils.
10. The electric motor system of claim 9, wherein
the controller is configured to control each pair of electromagnetic coils to stagger or offset a stator magnetic field generated by the pair of electromagnetic coils relative to the rotor magnetic pole, and wherein the controller utilizes N/2 times as many switching transistors to individually control each electromagnetic coil of each pair of electromagnetic coils to receive a different current magnitude.
11. A method of arranging and operating an electric motor system for an electrified vehicle, the electric motor system including a permanent magnet motor (PMM) and a controller, the method comprising:
providing the PMM including:
forming a hollow cylindrical stator defining a circular inner portion with a plurality of slots defined between a respective plurality of ferromagnetic teeth and having a plurality of electromagnetic coils arranged in the plurality of slots, respectively; and
forming a cylindrical rotor disposed within the stator and defining a circular outer portion having N pairs of permanent magnets arranged thereabout to define N rotor poles, respectively,
wherein at least one pair of the N pairs of permanent magnets is asymmetrically staggered or offset relative a symmetric N pole positioning, and wherein N is an even integer greater than or equal to four; and
providing a controller configured to control the PMM to mitigate or eliminate magnetic cogging.
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the symmetric N pole positioning is every 360/N degrees.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein at least two pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the circularly opposed pairs are asymmetrically staggered or offset by a same amount relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
18. The method of claim 15, wherein the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset by different amounts relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
19. The method of claim 11, wherein the stator is configured such that the stator has a plurality of electromagnetic coils with the plurality of ferromagnetic teeth therebetween the electromagnetic coils.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the controller is configured to control each pair of electromagnetic coils to stagger or offset a stator magnetic field generated by the pair of electromagnetic coils relative to the rotor magnetic pole, and
wherein the controller utilizes N/2 times as many switching transistors to individually control each electromagnetic coil of each pair of electromagnetic coils to receive a different current magnitude.
1. An electric motor system for an electrified vehicle, the electric motor system comprising:
a permanent magnet motor (PMM) including:
a hollow cylindrical stator defining a circular inner portion with a plurality of slots, defined between a respective plurality of ferromagnetic teeth, and having a plurality of electromagnetic coils arranged in the plurality of slots, respectively; and
a cylindrical rotor disposed within the stator and defining a circular outer portion having N pairs of permanent magnets arranged thereabout to define N rotor poles, respectively,
see claim 5
wherein N is an even integer greater than or equal to four; and
a controller configured to control the PMM to mitigate or eliminate magnetic cogging
by controlling each pair of electromagnetic coils to stagger or offset a stator magnetic field generated by the pair of electromagnetic coils relative to the rotor magnetic poles, wherein the controller utilizes N/2 times as many switching transistors to individually control each electromagnetic coil of each pair of electromagnetic coils to receive a different current magnitude.
4. The electric motor system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the N pairs of permanent magnets of the rotor are arranged to have a symmetric N pole positioning, and wherein the symmetric N pole positioning is every 360/N degrees.
5. The electric motor system of claim 4, wherein at least one pair of the N pairs of permanent magnets is asymmetrically staggered or offset relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
7. The electric motor system of claim 5, wherein at least two pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
8. The electric motor system of claim 7, wherein the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets include circularly opposed pairs.
10. The electric motor system of claim 7, wherein the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset by different amounts relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
See claim 1 section (b)
See claim 1 section (f)
11. A method of arranging and operating an electric motor system for an electrified vehicle, the electric motor system including a permanent magnet motor (PMM) and a controller, the method comprising:
providing the PMM including:
forming a hollow cylindrical stator defining a circular inner portion with a plurality of slots, defined between a respective plurality of ferromagnetic teeth, and having a plurality of electromagnetic coils arranged in the plurality of slots, respectively; and
forming a cylindrical rotor disposed within the stator and defining a circular outer portion having N pairs of permanent magnets arranged thereabout to define N rotor poles, respectively,
wherein N is an even integer greater than or equal to four; and
(see claim 15, 17 for permanent magnets is asymmetrically staggered or offset relative a symmetric N pole positioning)
providing a controller configured to control the PMM to mitigate or eliminate magnetic cogging
by controlling each pair of electromagnetic coils to stagger or offset a stator magnetic field generated by the pair of electromagnetic coils relative to the rotor magnetic poles,
wherein the controller utilizes N/2 times as many switching transistors to individually control each electromagnetic coil of each pair of electromagnetic coils to receive a different current magnitude.
14. The method of claim 11, wherein at least some of the N pairs of permanent magnets of the rotor are arranged to have a symmetric N pole positioning, and wherein the symmetric N pole positioning is every 360/N degrees.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein at least one pair of the N pairs of permanent magnets is asymmetrically staggered or offset relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein at least two pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
20. The method of claim 17, wherein the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset by different amounts relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
See claim 11 section (b)
See claim 11 section (f) (g)
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam (WO 2020092647 A1) in view of Moon et al. (US 2019/0135118 A1) and Sun et al. (US 2018/0159392 A1).
RE claim 1, Islam teaches an electric motor system (Figs.2, 3, 8 and 9) for an electrified vehicle (see ¶ 2), the electric motor system comprising: a permanent magnet motor (PMM) (¶ 1, 22) including: a stator (Fig.8) defining a circular inner portion with a plurality of slots, defined between a respective plurality of ferromagnetic teeth (see ¶ 38 for stator teeth is made of electromagnetic material), and having a plurality of electromagnetic coils (¶ 17, 40) arranged in the plurality of slots (Figs.8, 9), respectively; and a cylindrical rotor (rotor, see Figs.2, 9) disposed within the stator and defining a circular outer portion having N pairs of permanent magnets arranged thereabout to define N rotor poles (Fig.2), respectively, wherein at least one pair of the N pairs of permanent magnets is asymmetrically staggered or offset relative a symmetric N pole positioning (see Fig.2B), and wherein N is an even integer greater than or equal to four (N=12); the PMM is being utilized to mitigate or eliminate magnetic cogging (see ¶ 21).
Islam does not teach:
the stator included hollow cylindrical stator, the rotor includes a cylindrical rotor and a controller configured to control the PMM.
there are at least three different spacings or distances between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets
RE (i) above, Moon teaches stator 110 include hollow cylindrical stator 110 (¶ 74), the rotor 120 includes a cylindrical rotor 120 (¶ 74) and a controller configured to control the PMM (¶ 12, 16). The cylindrical shape stator/rotor allows the rotor to rotates (¶ 74) in the most efficient manner. Further, the controller can be utilized to control the motor to have small torque ripple (¶ 89-92).
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 Islam by having the stator include hollow cylindrical stator, the rotor includes a cylindrical rotor and a controller configured to control the PMM, as taught by Moon, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Sun teaches at least three different spacings or distances (D3, D4 and D5, see annotated Fig.7 below) between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets (see Fig.7). By selecting appropriate radial distances and rib distances for each segment, the PM motor may be configured to have a lower overall ripple torque than a symmetrically designed motor (¶ 50).
[AltContent: textbox (D5)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
880
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Islam in view of Moon by having at least three different spacings or distances between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets, as taught by Sun, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the magnetic cogging is caused by the rotor poles passing under the ferromagnetic stator teeth and is mitigated or eliminated due to the asymmetric staggering or offsetting of the at least one pair of the N pairs of permanent magnets (Fig.2B).
RE claim 3/1, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the magnetic cogging is caused by a periodic strength of a magnetic field resulting from a periodic layout of the electromagnetic coils and the ferromagnetic stator teeth, and wherein the controller is configured to control the PMM to mitigate or eliminate the magnetic cogging when the electromagnetic coils are energized (functional and/or intended result limitation. Because Islam in view of Moon disclosed the same structure as claimed, such structure is capable of performing and/or obtaining the function/result as claimed).
Insofar as this recitation refers to an intended use of an electric machine, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
RE claim 4/1, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the symmetric N pole positioning is every 360/N degrees (Figs.2).
RE claim 5/1, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches at least two pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset relative to the symmetric N pole positioning (Fig.2).
RE claim 6/5, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets include circularly opposed pairs (Fig.2).
RE claim 7/6, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam does not teach the circularly opposed pairs are asymmetrically staggered or offset by a same amount relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
However, Islam suggests that the angular shift (staggered/offset) is a result effective variable whose value can be adjusted base on pole number to reduce ripple and cogging torque (¶ 23).
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 Islam in view of Moon and Sun by having the circularly opposed pairs are asymmetrically staggered or offset by a same amount relative to the symmetric N pole positioning, as suggested by Islam, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 8/5, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam does not teach the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset by different amounts relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
However, Islam suggests that the angular shift (staggered/offset) is a result effective variable whose value can be adjusted base on pole number to reduce ripple and cogging torque (¶ 23).
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 Islam in view of Moon by having the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset by different amounts relative to the symmetric N pole positioning, as suggested by Islam, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
RE claim 9/1, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the stator is configured such that the stator has a plurality of electromagnetic coils with one of the plurality of ferromagnetic teeth therebetween the electromagnetic coils (see Fig.9A, ¶ 38, 40).
RE claim 11, Islam teaches a method of arranging and operating an electric motor system (Figs.2, 3, 8 and 9) for an electrified vehicle (¶ 2), the electric motor system including a permanent magnet motor (PMM) (¶ 1, 22), the method comprising: providing the PMM including: forming a stator defining a circular inner portion with a plurality of slots defined between a respective plurality of ferromagnetic teeth (see Figs.8, 9 and ¶ 38 for stator teeth is made of electromagnetic material) and having a plurality of electromagnetic coils arranged in the plurality of slots (Figs.8, 9), respectively; and forming a rotor (Fig.9) disposed within the stator and defining a circular outer portion having N pairs of permanent magnets arranged thereabout to define N rotor poles (Fig.2 and ¶ 30), respectively, wherein at least one pair of the N pairs of permanent magnets is asymmetrically staggered or offset relative a symmetric N pole positioning (Fig.2), and wherein N is an even integer greater than or equal to four (N=12); and the PMM is being utilized to mitigate or eliminate magnetic cogging (see ¶ 21).
Islam does not teach
the stator includes hollow cylindrical stator, the rotor includes a cylindrical rotor and a controller configured to control the PMM.
there are at least three different spacings or distances between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets
RE (i) above, Moon teaches stator 110 include hollow cylindrical stator 110 (¶ 74), the rotor 120 includes a cylindrical rotor 120 (¶ 74) and a controller configured to control the PMM (¶ 12, 16). The cylindrical shape stator/rotor allows the rotor to rotates (¶ 74) in the most efficient manner. Further, the controller can be utilized to control the motor to have small torque ripple (¶ 89-92).
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 Islam by having the stator include hollow cylindrical stator, the rotor includes a cylindrical rotor and a controller configured to control the PMM, as taught by Moon, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Sun teaches at least three different spacings or distances (D3, D4 and D5, see annotated Fig.7 above) between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets (see Fig.7). By selecting appropriate radial distances and rib distances for each segment, the PM motor may be configured to have a lower overall ripple torque than a symmetrically designed motor (¶ 50).
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 Islam in view of Moon by having at least three different spacings or distances between neighboring pairs of permanent magnets of the N pairs of permanent magnets, as taught by Sun, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 12/11, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the magnetic cogging is caused by the rotor poles passing under the ferromagnetic stator teeth and is mitigated or eliminated due to the asymmetric staggering or offsetting of the at least one pair of the N pairs of permanent magnets (functional and/or intended result limitation. Because Islam in view of Moon disclosed the same structure as claimed, such structure is capable of performing and/or obtaining the function/result as claimed).
Insofar as this recitation refers to an intended use of an electric machine, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
RE claim 13/11, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the magnetic cogging is caused by a periodic strength of a magnetic field resulting from a periodic layout of the electromagnetic coils and the ferromagnetic stator teeth, and wherein the controller is configured to control the PMM to mitigate or eliminate the magnetic cogging when the electromagnetic coils are energized (Insofar as this recitation refers to an intended use of an electric machine, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
RE claim 14/11, Islam in view of Moon has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the symmetric N pole positioning is every 360/N degrees (see Fig.2).
RE claim 15/11, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches at least two pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset relative to the symmetric N pole positioning (see Fig.2).
RE claim 16/15, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets include circularly opposed pairs (Fig.2).
RE claim 17/16, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam does not teach the circularly opposed pairs are asymmetrically staggered or offset by a same amount relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
However, Islam suggests that the angular shift (staggered/offset) is a result effective variable whose value can be adjusted base on pole number to reduce ripple and cogging torque (¶ 23).
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 Islam in view of Moon by having the circularly opposed pairs are asymmetrically staggered or offset by a same amount relative to the symmetric N pole positioning, as suggested by Islam, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 18/15, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam does not teach the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset by different amounts relative to the symmetric N pole positioning.
However, Islam suggests that the angular shift (staggered/offset) is a result effective variable whose value can be adjusted base on pole number to reduce ripple and cogging torque (¶ 23).
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 Islam in view of Moon by having the at least two asymmetrically staggered or offset pairs of the N pairs of permanent magnets are asymmetrically staggered or offset by different amounts relative to the symmetric N pole positioning, as suggested by Islam, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
RE claim 19/11, Islam in view of Moon and Sun has been discussed above. Islam further teaches the stator is configured such that the stator has a plurality of electromagnetic coils with one of the plurality of ferromagnetic teeth therebetween the electromagnetic coils (see Fig.9A, ¶ 38, 40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending 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.
On page 7 of the Remark, Applicant argued that a terminal has been filed concurrently to the ‘084 application.
In response: Applicant’s argument was not found persuasive because Applicant has not filed a terminal respond with regard to the instant application 18/489,088 as well as the conflicting application 18/489,084.
Therefore, the double patenting rejection has been maintained as noted above.
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