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.
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 1-8, 12, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 2020/0021153 A1) in view of Vyas et al. (US 2013/0320796 A1) and Sanga et al. (US 2023/0198325 A1).
RE claim 1, Saito teaches a rotor 2 for a rotary electric machine 1 (Fig.1 and ¶ 28), the rotor 2 comprising:
an annular stack of rotor lamination layers 15 constructed of a magnetic core material (¶ 31), the rotor lamination layers having inner axial surfaces collectively defining a first plurality of openings 21 through the magnetic core material 15, a second plurality of openings 23 through the magnetic core material 15, and a third plurality of openings 22 through the magnetic core material;
a first plurality of permanent magnets 60, each respective one of which is disposed within a corresponding one of the first plurality of openings 21;
a second plurality of permanent magnets 60, each respective one of which is disposed within a corresponding one of the second plurality of openings 23; and
a third plurality of permanent magnets 60, each respective one of which is disposed within a corresponding one of the third plurality of openings 22;
a first radial web 51, 52 and a second radial web 51, 52, wherein the first radial web 51, 52 is disposed between the first plurality of permanent magnets 60 and the second plurality of permanent magnets 60, and wherein the second radial web 51, 52 is disposed between the second plurality of permanent magnets 60 and the third plurality of permanent magnets 60 (Fig.4).
Saito does not teach:
the first plurality of permanent magnets includes high-coercivity magnets, the second plurality of permanent magnets includes low-coercivity magnets and the third plurality of permanent magnets includes additional high-coercivity magnets,
the low-coercivity magnet has curved shape.
RE (i) above, Vyas teaches the first plurality of permanent magnets 40 includes high-coercivity magnets (rare earth magnet with higher field strength, see ¶ 14, 15 and Fig.3), the second plurality of permanent magnets 44 includes low-coercivity magnets (ferrite magnet, low field strength, see ¶ 14, 15) and the third plurality of permanent magnets 42 includes additional high-coercivity magnets (rare earth magnet with higher field strength, see ¶ 14, 15). Such configuration generates an enhanced torque for the motor. As a result, cost associated with the utilizing a same magnet within the rotor, such as rare earth magnets may be reduced, by utilizing two sets of magnets having different magnetic field strengths in the configuration as described herein (¶ 19).
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 Saito by having the first plurality of permanent magnets includes high-coercivity magnets, the second plurality of permanent magnets includes low-coercivity magnets and the third plurality of permanent magnets includes additional high-coercivity magnets, as taught by Vyas, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Vyas teaches the low-coercivity magnet 44 has curved shape.
Sanga suggests that magnet can have straight shape or curved shape and magnet configuration to have appropriate coercive forces accordingly for the layout pattern of the permanent magnets. As a result, the demagnetization resistance and the magnetization can be both achieved (¶ 58, 63).
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 Saito by having the low-coercivity magnet to be curved shape (or straight shape), as taught by and suggested by Sanga, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
RE claim 2/1, as discussed above, Vyas teaches the first plurality of permanent magnets 40 is arranged in a first stacked configuration (Fig.3), each of the first plurality of permanent magnets having parallel magnetization 50 (Fig.3 and ¶ 18).
RE claim 3/2, as discussed above, Vyas teaches the third plurality of permanent magnets 42 are arranged in a third stacked configuration (Fig.3), each of the third plurality of permanent magnets having parallel magnetization 50 (Fig.3 and ¶ 18).
RE claim 4/3, Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga has been discussed above. Saito further teaches each of the first plurality of permanent magnets 60 and each of the third plurality of permanent magnets 60 have a rectangular configuration (Fig.2).
RE claim 5/4, as discussed above, Vyas teaches the first plurality of permanent magnets 40 and the third plurality of permanent magnets 42 include rare-earth magnets (¶ 14, 15), and wherein the second plurality of permanent magnets 44 include ferrite magnets (¶ 14, 15).
RE claim 6/5, as discussed above, Vyas teaches a height of at least one of the ferrite magnets 44 is greater than a height of at least one of the rare-earth magnets 40, 42 (Fig.3).
RE claim 7/1, as discussed above, Vyas teaches the second plurality permanent magnets 44 are arranged in a second stacked configuration (Fig.3), each of the second plurality of permanent magnets 42 having parallel magnetization 52 (Fig.3).
RE claim 8/1, as discussed above, Vyas teaches the second plurality of permanent magnets 44 are arranged in a second stacked configuration including curved magnets 44 having radial magnetization (Fig.3).
RE claim 12/1, Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga has been discussed above. Saito further teaches at least some of the first plurality of openings 21, the plurality of second openings 23, and the plurality of third openings 22 define one or more cooling channels 20a therethrough in proximity to at least some of the first plurality of permanent magnets 60, the second plurality of permanent magnets 60, and the third plurality of permanent magnets 60 (Fig.2).
RE claim 13/1, Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga has been discussed above. Saito further teaches a three-layer topology including: a first flux barrier composed of a first magnet 60 of the first plurality of permanent magnets 60, a first magnet 60 of the second plurality of permanent magnets 60, and a first magnet 60 of the third plurality of permanent magnets 60; a second flux barrier composed of a second magnet 60 of the first plurality of permanent magnets 60, a second magnet 60 of the second plurality of magnets 60, and a second magnet 60 of the third plurality of magnets 60; and a third flux barrier composed of a third magnet 60 of the first plurality of permanent magnets, a third magnet of the second plurality of permanent magnets, and a third magnet of the third plurality of permanent magnets 60.
Saito does not teach the third flux barrier comprising a third magnet of the second plurality of permanent magnet (i.e.: there are only two magnets 60 in second slots 23).
Vyas teaches a four layers topology with four magnets in each of the first/second/third magnet (Fig.3). The number of magnets can be adjusted (increase/decrease) to optimize power output and cost of the electrical machine.
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 Saito by having the third flux barrier comprising a third magnet of the second plurality of permanent magnet, as suggested by Vyas, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 15/13, as discussed above, Vyas teaches the first plurality of permanent magnets 40 and the third plurality of permanent magnets 42 include rare-earth magnets, and wherein the second plurality of permanent magnets 44 include ferrite magnets (¶ 14, 15).
RE claim 16, Saito teaches a rotary electric machine 1 (Fig.1) comprising: a stator 3; a rotor 2 having an annular stack of lamination layers 15 (¶ 31) surrounded by the stator 3, the annular stack 15 constructed of a magnetic core material (steel sheet, see ¶ 31), the rotor lamination layers 15 having an outer diameter and an inner diameter surface defining a plurality of openings 21, 23, 22 therethrough; and a set of permanent magnets 60 disposed in the openings 21, 23, 22 and arranged within the annular stack in a three-layer topology (Fig.2), two out of the three layers containing at least three of the permanent magnets 60, the three layers including: a first layer adjacent to the outer diameter surface; a second layer adjacent to the first layer; and a third layer adjacent to the inner diameter surface (Fig.2), the set of permanent magnets including (i) a plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets, and (ii) a plurality of high-coercivity permanent magnets adjacent to the plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets and separated therefrom by one or more radial webs 51, 52 of the magnetic core material 15 (Fig.2).
Saito does not teach:
each of the respective one of the three layers containing at least three of the permanent magnets (Saito teaches two out of three layers containing at least three of permanent magnet) and the set of permanent magnets including (i) a plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets, and (ii) a plurality of high-coercivity permanent magnets adjacent to the plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets.
the low-coercivity magnet has curved shape.
RE (i) above, Vyas teaches each of the respective one of the three layers containing at least three of the permanent magnets 40, 42, 44 (Fig.3) and the set of permanent magnets including (i) a plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets, and (ii) a plurality of high-coercivity permanent magnets adjacent to the plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets (¶ 14, 15). Such configuration generates an enhanced torque for the motor. As a result, cost associated with the utilizing a same magnet within the rotor, such as rare earth magnets may be reduced, by utilizing two sets of magnets having different magnetic field strengths in the configuration as described herein (¶ 19). Further, the number of magnets can be adjusted (increase/decrease) to optimize power output and cost of the electrical machine.
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 Saito by having each of the respective one of the three layers containing at least three of the permanent magnets (Saito teaches two out of three layers containing at least three of permanent magnet) and the set of permanent magnets including (i) a plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets, and (ii) a plurality of high-coercivity permanent magnets adjacent to the plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets, as taught by Vyas, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Vyas teaches the low-coercivity magnet 44 has curved shape.
Sanga suggests that magnet can have straight shape or curved shape and magnet configuration to have appropriate coercive forces accordingly for the layout pattern of the permanent magnets. As a result, the demagnetization resistance and the magnetization can be both achieved (¶ 58, 63).
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 Saito by having the low-coercivity magnet to be curved shape (or straight shape), as taught by and suggested by Sanga, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
RE claim 17/16, Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga has been discussed above. Saito further teaches at least one of the three layers includes at least one of the magnets 60 disposed on each side of one of the one or more radial webs 51, 52 of the magnetic core material 15.
Saito does not teach said magnet is low-coercivity permanent magnets.
As discussed above, Vyas teaches the set of permanent magnets including (i) a plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets, and (ii) a plurality of high-coercivity permanent magnets adjacent to the plurality of low-coercivity permanent magnets (¶ 14, 15). Such configuration generates an enhanced torque for the motor. As a result, cost associated with the utilizing a same magnet within the rotor, such as rare earth magnets may be reduced, by utilizing two sets of magnets having different magnetic field strengths in the configuration as described herein (¶ 19).
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 Saito by having said magnet to be low-coercivity permanent magnets, as suggested by Vyas, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 18/16, as discussed above, Vyas teaches the low-coercivity permanent magnets 44 include ferrite magnets, and the high-coercivity permanent magnets 40, 42 includes rare-earth permanent magnets (¶ 14, 15), and wherein the second plurality of permanent magnets 44 include ferrite magnets (¶ 14, 15).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2024/0113576 A1).
RE claim 9/8, Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga has been discussed above. Saito does not teach at least one of the second plurality of openings includes a double hump profile.
Tanaka teaches least one of the plurality of openings 51 includes a double hump profile 54 (Fig.6), doing so allows the magnet to be in contact with improved holding force to the core plate (¶ 8, 87).
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 Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga by having at least one of the second plurality of openings includes a double hump profile, as taught by Tanaka, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masubuchi et al. (US 2016/0181896 A1).
RE claim 10/1, Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga has been discussed above. Saito does not teach at least one of the second plurality of openings includes a polymer support layer between the permanent magnet corresponding to the at least one of the second plurality of openings and the at least one of the second plurality of openings.
Masubuchi teaches at least one of the plurality of openings includes a polymer support layer 15 between the permanent magnet 14 corresponding to the at least one of the second plurality of openings 13 and the at least one of the second plurality of openings 13 (Fig.1 and ¶ 42), doing so anchor the magnet to the magnet receptable (¶ 42, 46).
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 Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga by having at least one of the second plurality of openings includes a polymer support layer between the permanent magnet corresponding to the at least one of the second plurality of openings and the at least one of the second plurality of openings, as taught by Masubuchi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 11/1, Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga has been discussed above. Saito does not teach each of the second plurality of permanent magnets are bonded to the annular stack of rotor lamination layers.
Masubuchi teaches each of the plurality of permanent magnets 14 are bonded to the annular stack of rotor lams 111 (via layer 15, see ¶ 42), doing so anchor the magnet to the magnet receptable (¶ 42, 46).
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 Saito in view of Vyas and Sanga by having each of the second plurality of permanent magnets are bonded to the annular stack of rotor lams, as taught by Masubuchi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 2020/0021153 A1) in view of Vyas et al. (US 2013/0320796 A1), Koka (US 2015/0115758 A1) and Sanga et al. (US 2023/0198325 A1).
RE claim 19, Saito a rotary electric machine 1 (Fig.1), wherein the rotary electric machine 1 includes: a stator 3; and a rotor 2 having a plurality of lamination layers 15 (“rotor lams”) (steel sheet, see ¶ 31) surrounded by the stator 3, the plurality of rotor lams 15 constructed of a magnetic core material (¶ 31), the rotor lams 15 having inner axial surfaces collectively defining a first plurality of openings 21 through the magnetic core material, a second plurality of openings 23 through the magnetic core material 15, and a third plurality of openings 22 through the magnetic core 15; a first plurality of permanent magnets 60, each respective one of which is disposed within a corresponding one of the first plurality of openings 21; a second plurality of permanent magnets 60, each respective one of which is disposed within a corresponding one of the second plurality of openings 23; and a third plurality of permanent magnets 60, each respective one of which is disposed within a corresponding one of the third plurality of openings 22.
Saito does not teach
the first plurality of permanent magnets includes high-coercivity magnets, the second plurality of permanent magnets includes low-coercivity magnets and the third plurality of permanent magnets includes additional high-coercivity magnets.
the electrical machine utilized in an electrified vehicle wherein the electrical machine configured to be coupled to one or more road wheels disposed on a drive axle; a battery pack electrically connected to the rotary electric machine; and a controller configured to control the rotary electric machine.
the low-coercivity magnet has curved shape.
RE (i) above, Vyas teaches the first plurality of permanent magnets 40 includes high-coercivity magnets (rare earth magnet with higher field strength, see ¶ 14, 15 and Fig.3), the second plurality of permanent magnets 44 includes low-coercivity magnets (ferrite magnet, low field strength, see ¶ 14, 15) and the third plurality of permanent magnets 42 includes additional high-coercivity magnets (rare earth magnet with higher field strength, see ¶ 14, 15). Such configuration generates an enhanced torque for the motor. As a result, cost associated with the utilizing a same magnet within the rotor, such as rare earth magnets may be reduced, by utilizing two sets of magnets having different magnetic field strengths in the configuration as described herein (¶ 19).
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 Saito by having the first plurality of permanent magnets includes high-coercivity magnets, the second plurality of permanent magnets includes low-coercivity magnets and the third plurality of permanent magnets includes additional high-coercivity magnets, as taught by Vyas, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Koka evidenced that it is well-known for multi-layer permanent magnet rotor (Fig.2) to be utilized in an electrified vehicle (¶ 2) wherein the electrical machine configured to be coupled to one or more road wheels disposed on a drive axle (¶ 67); a battery pack electrically connected to the rotary electric machine (¶ 68); and a controller configured to control the rotary electric machine (¶ 55, 56). The permanent magnet electrical machine can be utilized to reduce the emission of environmental loads from a motor vehicle.
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 Saito in view of Vyas by utilizing the rotating electrical machine in any applicable application such as electrical machine configured to be coupled to one or more road wheels disposed on a drive axle; a battery pack electrically connected to the rotary electric machine; and a controller configured to control the rotary electric machine, as taught by Koka, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (iii) above, Vyas teaches the low-coercivity magnet 44 has curved shape.
Sanga suggests that magnet can have straight shape or curved shape and magnet configuration to have appropriate coercive forces accordingly for the layout pattern of the permanent magnets. As a result, the demagnetization resistance and the magnetization can be both achieved (¶ 58, 63).
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 Saito by having the low-coercivity magnet to be curved shape (or straight shape), as taught by and suggested by Sanga, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
RE claim 20/19, as discussed above, Vyas teaches the first plurality of permanent magnets 40 and the third plurality of permanent magnets 42 include rare-earth magnets (¶ 15), and wherein the second plurality of permanent magnets 44 include ferrite magnets (¶ 15).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. in view of Vyas, Koka and Sanga as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Masubuchi et al. (US 2016/0181896 A1).
RE claim 21/20, Saito et al. in view of Vyas, Koka and Sanga has been discussed above. Saito does not teach at least one of the second plurality of openings includes a polymer support layer between the permanent magnet corresponding to the at least one of the second plurality of openings and the at least one of the second plurality of openings.
Masubuchi teaches at least one of the plurality of openings includes a polymer support layer 15 between the permanent magnet 14 corresponding to the at least one of the plurality of openings 13 and the at least one of the plurality of openings 13 (Fig.1 and ¶ 35), doing so provide anchoring material for the magnet receptable and magnet (¶ 47) which can improve reliability of the rotor/motor.
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 Saito et al. in view of Vyas, Koka and Sanga by having at least one of the second plurality of openings includes a polymer support layer between the permanent magnet corresponding to the at least one of the second plurality of openings and the at least one of the second plurality of openings, as taught by Masubuchi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
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.
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