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 . Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 11 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has changed the scope of claim 1 by eliminating some features from the claim that previously were considered as the inventive part of the application. The amended claim 1, now focuses on a multi-section rotor wherein the poles of each rotor section is staggered with respect to its neighboring sections. Applicant has claimed that Reddy does not teach a multi-section rotor with staggered magnetic tile grooves.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it should be noted that a magnetic tile groove is referred to a void or an empty circumferential space between adjacent poles of the rotor. It follows that if the poles of one rotor section are rotated with respect to the poles of an adjacent rotor section, the magnetic tile grooves- the empty spaces- must follow the poles and rotate by the same amount. If as Applicant has acknowledged that in Reddy’s case, the “shaft protrusion cut” is angularly shifted, then the grooves- the empty spaces- must also shift. Referring to the annotated fig. 3 presented in this Office action, one can clearly see an angular shift between adjacent rotor sections.
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, for claim 2, “a projection of a centerline of each magnetic tile groove on an end face of the rotor section” and “a circle centered on the center of the end face of the rotor section” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim. 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.
Claims 2 is 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.
In claim 2, the limitation of “a projection of a centerline of each magnetic tile groove on an end face of the rotor section is tangential to a circle centered on the center of the end face of the rotor section” has not been described in the specification or shown on any of the figures.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
In Claim 2, the limitation “a projection of a centerline of each magnetic tile groove on an end face of the rotor section is tangential to a circle centered on the center of the end face of the rotor section” is indefinite. It’s not clear what the applicant is trying to communicate. The word “tangential” has been used only once in the specification: “The Cogging torque is the torque generated by the interaction between the permanent magnet and the stator core when the permanent magnet motor winding is not energized. It is caused by the tangential component of the interaction between the permanent magnet and the armature teeth.” But this instant of tangential has nothing to do with the limitation in claim 2. Also, the word “circle” has not appeared even once in the specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al. (US 20150035402 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Reddy discloses a motor rotor structure (10, fig. 3) comprising:
a rotor iron core comprising a plurality of rotor sections (rotor sections, annotated fig. 3; stacks of laminations forming a plurality of lamination groups- see the abstract) arranged along an axial direction (axis, annotated fig. 3); and
PNG
media_image2.png
458
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of magnetic tile grooves (grooves, annotated fig. 1A) uniformly distributed on a circumference of each rotor section (see fig. 1A);
wherein magnetic tile grooves on adjacent ones of the plurality of rotor sections are circumferentially offset from one another at a joint surface between the adjacent rotor sections (see offsets between adjacent rotor sections in annotated fig. 3); and
wherein the magnetic tile grooves of the adjacent rotor sections are staggered at an angle (same as the rotation angle between adjacent rotor sections; see para [0039]: “As shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, the shaft protrusion cut 58 is formed so as to be offset from center 76 by an angle--indicated as 88 - that is selected during manufacturing of the lamination.”).
Reddy does not disclose the angle is in the range of 0.5° to 7° but does disclose that the relative rotation of poles in adjacent rotor segments results in reduced torque ripple (see para [0002]: “rotor laminations are shifted along an axial length of the machine to reduce torque ripple”) and the value is selected during manufacturing.
Reddy, in para [0037], also provides a maximum range for the angular offset between adjacent rotor segments: “The angle 80 by which the shaft protrusion cut 58 is positioned off-center has a maximum value of about half of the slot pitch--which is defined as the angle between two slots multiplied by the number of pole-pairs. It is recognized that the angular offset 80 of the shaft protrusion cut 58 from center 76 could be less than this maximum value.”
Adjusting the relative rotation angle between adjacent rotor sections and measuring torque ripple as a function of the rotation angle is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
To minimize the torque ripple, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the rotation angle is the range of 0.5° to 7°.
Regarding claim 3, Reddy discloses the motor rotor structure according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of rotor sections comprises two rotor sections (see two rotor sections in the annotated fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Reddy discloses the motor rotor structure according to claim 1, wherein an outer wall of each rotor section is uniformly formed with rotor skewing (see skewing between adjacent rotor sections in fig. 3), the rotor skewing comprising a plurality of surface features (surface features, annotated fig. 3; see the dips or channels on top of the embedded magnets) distributed around the circumference of the rotor section.
Regarding claim 7, Reddy discloses the motor rotor structure according to claim 5, but does not disclose wherein a first connection line between a midpoint of a first magnetic tile groove (interpreted as: midpoint of an outer radial side of a first magnetic tile groove) on an end face of the rotor section and a center of the end face of the rotor section, and a second connecting line between the midpoint of a bottom edge of the rotor skewing (interpreted as: midpoint of an inner radial side of a first magnetic tile groove) on a same end face of the rotor section and the center of the end face of the rotor section having an angle of 0° to 1°.
However, Reddy discloses a “spoke” type permanent magnet rotor (see the title) which implies the magnets are placed radially and this implies the angle will be zero.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to that the rotation angle is 0° to 1°.
Regarding claim 11, Reddy discloses an electric motor (10, fig. 1A) comprising a motor rotor structure as described in claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al. (US 20150035402 A1) in view of Xiao et al. (CN 217720984 U).
Regarding claim 6, Reddy discloses the motor rotor structure according to claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein the plurality of magnetic tile grooves is configured to receive magnetic steel elements of different lengths.
PNG
media_image3.png
536
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Xiao teaches a rotor (see fig. 2, above) that is similar to the rotor disclosed by Cai. However, Xiao uses magnetic steel elements of different lengths to achieve the best level of cost (see abstract: “according to the requirement of the motor performance, dividing a magnetic tile body into 2-4 magnetic separating tiles according to the design performance requirement, each magnetic tile can be designed into different sizes and materials with different performance and price according to the requirement, The performance of the designed new motor can reach the requirement (there is no excess or shortage), and the best level of the cost is achieved.”)
To optimize cost, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rotor structure in such a way that: the plurality of magnetic tile grooves is configured to receive magnetic steel elements of different lengths.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al. (CN 116526712 A) discloses a multi-section rotor structure assembly wherein each section has a plurality of magnetic tile grooves magnets are uniformly distributed on a circumference of each rotor section (fig. 1); wherein magnetic tile grooves on adjacent ones of the plurality of rotor sections are circumferentially offset from one another at a joint surface between the adjacent rotor sections (fig. 2); and wherein the magnetic tile grooves of the adjacent rotor sections are staggered at an angle of 2° to 25°. Several additional references pertinent to the instant application are listed on the form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834