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 .
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 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda et al. (JP-2016220286 A).
Kanda et al. teach a system, as per claim 1, and a method, as per claim 9, an a controller, as per claim 17, for manufacturing a rotor for a permanent magnet (PM) motor comprising a mold (41, 43, Fig. 2, paragraph [0032]) configured to receive a rotor body (1, Fig. 1, paragraph [0027]) including a plurality of rotor teeth and defining one or more rotor cavities (15, Fig. 1); a plurality of electromagnetic coils comprising: a plurality of magnetic cores (72, Fig. 6, paragraph [0067]), each of the plurality of magnetic cores configured to align with a respective one of the plurality of rotor teeth as shown in Fig. 6; and a plurality of electromagnetic windings (73, Fig. 6, paragraph [0067]), wherein each of the electromagnetic windings is wound about at least one of the plurality of magnetic cores as shown in Fig. 6; and a controller (24, Fig. 2, paragraph [0029]) configured to: after the rotor body is positioned within the mold, close the mold as shown in Figs. 2 and 3; after closing the mold, excite the plurality of electromagnetic coils (paragraphs [0019]-[0020]); after exciting the plurality of electromagnetic coils, inject a magnetic material (36, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]) into the one or more rotor cavities, wherein the excited electromagnetic coils align the magnetic material into a desired magnetic orientation prior to solidification of the magnetic material (paragraphs [0042]-[0044] and [0059]); and after injecting the magnetic material, de-energize (or demagnetization) the plurality of electromagnetic coils (paragraphs [0048]-[0052]).
Even though Kanda et al. do not implicitly teach the controller to perform closing the mold, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily understand that the mold should be closed prior to inject the magnetic material. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A).
Re. claims 2, 10 and 18: Even though Kanda et al. do not implicitly teach the controller to perform opening the mold, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily understand that the mold should be opened prior to use the rotor. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A).
Re. claims 3, 11 and 19: Even though Kanda et al. do not implicitly teach the controller to perform opening the mold to eject rotor body, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily understand that the mold should be opened and take the rotor body out prior to use the rotor. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A).
Re. claims 4, 12 and 20: Kanda et al. also teach that the plurality of electromagnetic coils are demagnetized after solidification of the magnetic material (paragraphs [0048]-[0052]).
Re. claims 5, 13: Kanda et al. also teach that the plurality of rotor teeth are curvilinear, and wherein at least one of the one or more rotor cavities is defined between a pair of concentric rotor teeth of the plurality of rotor teeth as shown in Fig. 1.
Re. claims 6, 14: Kanda et al. also teach that the rotor body is formed from a plurality of rotor laminations (paragraph [0026]).
Re. claims 8, 16: Kanda et al. also teach that the rotor body defines a plurality of rotor poles, and wherein each of the plurality of electromagnetic coils is configured to align with a respective one of the plurality of rotor poles as shown in Fig. 4 (paragraphs [0042], [0047] and [0071]).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Lloyd (US PAT. 4,939,398).
Kanda et al. teach all limitatins as set forth above, but silent that at least one rotor lamination of the plurality of rotor laminations is rotationally skewed relative to another lamination of the plurality of rotor laminations. Lloyd teaches a process of making a laminated assembly for a permanent magnet motor includes that the laminations in the rotor assembly are rotationally skewed with respect to each other in order to secure the lamination together to form a rotor body (col. 2, lines 54-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a rotor for a permanent magnet motor of Kanda et al. by rotationally skewed the lamination as taught by Lloyd in order to secure the lamination together to form a rotor body.
The Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsutsui et al. (US PAT. 10,355,625), and Toide et al. (US PAT. 6,225,724) are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a system and a method for manufacturing a rotor for a permanent magnet (PM) motor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights