DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application 18/521,906, filed on 28 November, 2023, were presented for examination, and are currently pending in the application.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a PCT application filed on 31 May, 2021. It was noted in the prior Office Action, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant’s response to the Examiner’s notification of certified copies not having been received, put forth in the prior Office Action and reiterated above, was to cite MPEP 1895 and submit that the certified copies are not required. According to MPEP 1895, the certified copies are not required because the references applied to the claims herein do not intervene between the priority date and the filing date of the present application. Therefore, the request for the certified copy of the PCT application will not be maintained while no intervening references are used in the rejections during the prosecution, the publication dates of the applied references being sufficiently antecedent to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Oath/Declaration
There is no record of an inventor’s oath or declaration in the application history. A Miscellaneous Communication was mailed to Applicant on 13 December, 2023, informing Applicant that the oath/declaration must be filed, signed by all four inventors, before the expiration of the time period set in the “Notice of Allowability”, to avoid abandonment. No Notice of Allowability has been sent yet, so the period for submitting the signed oath(s)/declaration(s) is not set to expire imminently. However, the Examiner wishes this to serve as a reminder that the application could eventually go abandoned, even after all the claims are allowable, if no oath/declaration is received.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 8 of the response/arguments, Applicant addresses the Examiner’s notification of Certified Copies of the PCT Application not having been received. That issue has been addressed in the “Priority” section above.
At the bottom of page 8, Applicant summarizes the Office Action. In page 9, Applicant asserts that the most recent amendments to the claims and specification overcome the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and the objection to the title. The Examiner concurs, those objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
Also in page 9, Applicant addresses the Office’s objections to the specification and claims for use of the term “magnetic steel” instead of “permanent magnet”. According to this argument, Applicant maintains that the elements 222 are steel, and calls the Examiner’s grounds for deeming elements 222 as permanent magnets “unsupported”. Therefore, the Office must adhere to the Applicant’s terminology and will no longer treat the “magnetic steels” as permanent magnets. In order to withdraw the objections, as Applicant asserts they are unsupported, the Office will interpret the items called “magnetic steel” in the specification, drawings, abstract, and claims, as steel. “Steel” is a well-known group of alloys, and consequently practitioners of ordinary skill in the art can and will understand what is being described and claimed by that label, and what is not (i.e. most rare-earth compounds and/or non-carbon-containing ferrous compounds, etc.). Although Applicant’s reinforcement of their position on this matter modifies the scope of the claims, at least from the Examiner’s point of view, the prior art rejections are maintained because the references used therein utilize the term “steel” in the appropriate designations.
Applicant at the bottom of page 9 and running onto the top of page 10 acknowledges that Examiner indicated claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Applicant then asserts that independent claim 1, 16, and 20 have been amended to recite “wherein the one rotor pressing plate comprises one pressing plate ring, at least two first radials, and at least two second radials, and wherein the at least two first radials and the at least two second radials are disposed between each other, and one end of each of the at least two first radials and one end of each of the at least two second radials are fastened to the pressing plate ring.”
Applicant alleges that claim 1 is allowable (along with independent claims 16 and 20) with all dependent claims due to the above-cited limitation.
However, the prior Office Action stated that claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant did not include the limitations of intervening claim 4, which during the establishment of the reasons for allowance the Examiner was still considering while he was weighing the importance of the limitations of claim 8.
More importantly, Applicant specifically omitted the limitation in claim 8 “wherein a quantity of the at least two first radials is the same as a quantity of the at least two second radials, and is the same as a quantity of the protruding components…” which was (and still is) the main reason claim 8 defines over Tang 1 and the other references cited in PTO Form 892.
It is clear from paragraph 44 of the prior Office Action that this was the most salient part/limitation of claim 8 that defined over the prior art, yet it was the part left out.
So, as is evident in the rejections of claims 1, 16, and 20 below, since the most recent amendment only inserted isolated and selected segments of claim 8, which are themselves taught by Tang 1, into the independent claims, the rejections of the independent claims have not been overcome. Rejections of some dependent claims have been changed due to the amendment.
As Applicant has not alleged any failing of Tang 1 to teach the newly-added subject matter in the independent claims, the Examiner has nothing to contest and merely refers to the rejections of those claims posed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang 1 (CN 108808921 A, reference provided with machine translation in prior Office Action).
With respect to claim 1, Tang 1 teaches a motor rotor (see title) comprising:
one rotor core [1], wherein the rotor core [1] comprises one rotor yoke (labeled in the annotated fig. 9 provided below – basically the flat disk not including the teeth 103 and 105) and at least two protruding components [first teeth 103 and second teeth 105] (first teeth 103 shaded in the excerpts by the Examiner – also, see ¶ 0071 of the provided translation), and the at least two protruding components [103/105] are disposed on a first surface (labeled by the Examiner in the joint excerpt) of the rotor yoke;
at least two grooves [“groups” of five mounting positions 101] (each group corresponds to a groove of the claim – the grooves/groups have been circumscribed and labeled by the Examiner in fig. 9), wherein each groove is formed with two adjacent protruding components [103] and the first surface of the rotor yoke (it is noted that second teeth 105, by being different from and smaller than first teeth 103, do not figure into the adjacent-ness of the main protruding components 103);
PNG
media_image1.png
520
1116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least two magnetic steels [2] that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves (see ¶ 0095 which recites “each group of magnetic steel mounting positions 101 comprises a plurality of steel grooves 104 for mounting magnetic steels 2”), wherein a quantity [eight/8] of the at least two magnetic steels is the same as a quantity of the at least two grooves [eight/8] (it is clear from figs. 6 and 9 that the quantity for both is eight/8); and
one rotor pressing plate [claw-shaped support 5] that is coupled to the at least two protruding components [103] for fastening the at least two magnetic steels [2] in the at least two grooves (see 0074 which recites “the claw-shaped support 5 comprises an annular support portion 501 and support ribs 502… …the support ribs 502 are uniformly distributed on the annular support portion 501, first screws 6 can sequentially penetrate through the support ribs 502 and the first iron core teeth 103…”),
wherein the one rotor pressing plate [5] comprises one pressing plate ring (labeled in the new annotated excerpt of fig. 6 attached below), at least two first radials, and at least two second radials (first and second radials also labeled), and
PNG
media_image2.png
592
871
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least two first radials and the at least two second radials are disposed between each other, and one end (the radially inner end) of each of the at least two first radials and one end (the radially inner end) of each of the at least two second radials are fastened to the pressing plate ring.
With respect to claim 3/1, Tang 1 teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least two protruding components [103] are disposed on the first surface of the rotor yoke (already established in the rejection of claim 1 above) at regular intervals along a circumferential direction (the intervals are 45o between each adjacent pair of main teeth 103).
With respect to claim 4/1 Tang 1 teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least two protruding components [103/105] comprise a first component, a second component, and a third component (components labeled in the new fig. 9 excerpt below, the first and third component being of the second teeth 105, the second component being one of the first teeth 103),
wherein heights of the first component [105] and the third component [105] are the same, and
PNG
media_image3.png
508
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
heights of the first component [105] and the second component [103] are different (¶ 0078 recites “the thickness of the first core teeth 1003 is greater than the thickness of the second core teeth 105 in the axial direction of the toroidal core”), wherein each height is a length along a normal direction (axial direction recited in ¶ 0078, also labeled in the fig. 9 excerpt) of the first surface of the rotor yoke, and
the first component [105], the second component [103], and the third component [105] are sequentially connected (in the counterclockwise direction as viewed in fig. 9) and disposed on the first surface of the rotor yoke.
With respect to claim 5/1 Tang 1 teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a shape of one of the at least two magnetic steels [2] is the same as a shape of one of the at least two grooves (see the joint annotated excerpts of figs. 5 and 6 below, wherein the Examiner has drawn a heavy outline defining the profile/shape of both elements – the shapes are the same because the elements mate here).
PNG
media_image4.png
410
932
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11/1, Tang 1 teaches the rotor of claim 1, further comprising a rotor support [combined rotor support 4 and hoop 3], wherein
the rotor support [4/3] comprises a support backing plate [rotor support 4], a support outer ring [hoop 3], and a support inner ring (see new annotated excerpt of fig. 6, attached below, wherein the support inner ring has been labeled – this element was labeled as an “annular log boss” 401 with reference to the embodiment of fig. 3, and this is also labeled in fig. 10), the support outer ring [3] is disposed on an outer edge of the support backing plate [4], and the support inner ring is disposed at a central position of the support backing plate [4]; and
PNG
media_image5.png
503
720
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the rotor core [1] is disposed in grooves between the support backing plate [4], the support outer ring [3], and the support inner ring (see ¶ 0066 and 0068 which establish how the elements of fig. 6 would stack during assembly).
12. With respect to claim 12/11/1, Tang 1 teaches the rotor of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the support backing plate [4] comprises at least two third fastening structures (¶ 0074 recites “first screws 6 can sequentially penetrate through the support ribs 502 and the first iron core teeth 103 and are fixed on the rotor support 4” – therefore, although the fastening structures are shown, corresponding in a one-to-one relationship with the first screws 6, but not labeled, the cited recitation proves that they exist in the backing plate 4 and that there are more than one of them), and
PNG
media_image6.png
490
841
media_image6.png
Greyscale
at least two first fastening structures (the Examiner has labeled the first and third fastening structures in the annotated excerpt of fig. 5 above – although they are not given a reference number in the figures or written description, the discussion of the first screws 6 establishes their existence in the reference and any person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that they are the holes shown in 4 and 5 in fig. 5) coupled to the at least two third fastening structures in a one-to-one correspondence, to fasten the rotor core [1] to the rotor support [4] (see ¶ 0073-0074).
13. With respect to claim 13/11/1, Tang 1 teaches the rotor of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the rotor pressing plate [5] comprises one pressing plate ring, the pressing plate ring comprises at least two fourth fastening structures, and the support inner ring comprises at least two fifth fastening structures (the pressing plate ring, fourth fastening structures and fifth fastening structures have been labeled by the Examiner in the new annotated fig. 6 excerpt attached below), wherein
PNG
media_image7.png
515
969
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the at least two fourth fastening structures are coupled to the at least two fifth fastening structures in a one-to-one correspondence, to fasten the rotor pressing plate [5] to the rotor support [4] (the preceding relationships are established in ¶ 0074 which recites “the annular support portion is connected with an annular boss 401 of the rotor support 4 through second screws 7…” – it being noted that the annular boss 401 is shown in fig. 10 – like the anticipation of the second and third fastening structures of claim 12, the fourth and fifth fastening structures, and their locations on elements 4 and 5, require a reading of ¶ 0074 in conjunction with figs. 6 and 10 to confirm; that the authors of the document left off labeling them does not mean that they are not in the reference – it is not a coincidence that there are eight of every one of these things in figs. 5 and 6).
14. With respect to claim 14/1 Tang 1 teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches a core clamping ring that is disposed on an inner edge of a central through hole (core clamping ring, inner edge, and central through hole labeled in the fig. 6 excerpt above – also see ¶ 0074, where an annular support ring, which is the core clamping ring, is described as reference numeral 501, but like many other things, these reference numerals did not make it into the drawings) of the rotor yoke [1] (between the description of the fastening of the screws in ¶ 0074 and figs. 5-6, it is clear that once the rotor is assembled, the core clamping ring will be disposed on the inner edge of the hole).
PNG
media_image8.png
412
775
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang 1 in view of Liu (CN 111355323 A, reference provided in prior Office Action with machine translation).
With respect to claim 2/1, Tang 1 teaches the rotor of claim 1, but omits teaching at least two sheets that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves, wherein one of the sheets is stacked on one of the magnetic steels, and a quantity of the at least two sheets is the same as the quantity of the at least two magnetic steels, wherein the rotor pressing plate is further configured to fasten the at least two magnetic steels and the at least two sheets in the at least two grooves.
Liu discloses a motor rotor comprising one rotor core [1], wherein the rotor core comprises one rotor yoke and at least two protruding components (all this is laid out in more detail in the rejection of claim 1 under Liu in the prior Office Action) and the at least two protruding components [2] are disposed on a first surface of the rotor yoke;
PNG
media_image9.png
570
903
media_image9.png
Greyscale
at least two grooves, wherein each groove is formed with two adjacent protruding components [2] and the first surface of the rotor yoke; at least two magnetic steels [301] that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves, wherein a quantity of at least two magnetic steels is the same as a quantity of the at least two grooves; and one rotor pressing plate [7 coupled with the top flanges of elements 2] that is coupled to the at least two protruding components [2] for fastening the at least two magnetic steels [301] in the at least two grooves.
PNG
media_image10.png
592
919
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches at least two sheets [upper layers / pole shoes 302] that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves (they are each attached to a permanent magnet, so when the permanent magnets 301 go into the grooves, the sheets 302 go with them – the two are shown together as “3” in fig. 4), wherein one of the sheets [302] is stacked on one of the magnetic steels [301], and a quantity of the at least two sheets [302] is the same as the quantity of the at least two magnetic steels [301] (see fig. 1 excerpt below) , wherein
the rotor pressing plate [7 and the top flanges of elements 2] is further configured to fasten the at least two magnetic steels [301] and the at least two sheets [302] in the at least two grooves (see fig. 4 and ¶ 0034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Tang 1, while incorporating sheets disposed on the magnetic steels, as taught by Liu, in order that the radians of the pole shoes on the surface of the permanent magnet can be adjusted, sinewave air gap flux density is generated, the output torque of the motor is smooth, the sheets can protect the permanent magnets (magnetic steels) against field loss under the action of a demagnetization field, and the field weakening capacity of the motor is improved (Liu, abstract).
With respect to claim 6/2/1, Tang 1 in view of Liu teaches the motor of claim 2, Liu further teaches wherein a shape [pie-piece shape] of one of the at least two sheets [302] is the same as a shape of one of the at least two grooves [also pie-piece shape] (see various fig. 1 and 2 excerpts in the rejection of fig. 1-2 above).
19. With respect to claim 7/2/1, Tang 1 in view of Liu teaches the motor of claim 2, Liu further teaches wherein the at least two sheets [302] are made of a soft magnetic composite material (see ¶ 0034 which recites “the upper layer is a pole shoe 302 made of SMC…”).
17. Claims 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang 1 in view of Tang 2 (CN 109245401 A – reference provided in prior Office Action with machine translation).
18. With respect to claim 15/11/1, Tang 1 teaches the motor of claim 11, but omits teaching a sheath that is disposed on an outer edge of the rotor support.
Tang 2 discloses a disk motor comprising at least one rotor [2], the rotor comprising a yoke [back iron 23] supported by a rotor support [rotor holder 24], wherein the magnets [magnetic steels 22] are fastened to the yoke [23] using a pressing plate [magnet steel retainer 21].
PNG
media_image11.png
417
459
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Tang 2 teaches a sheath [limiting carbon fiber ring 25] disposed on an outer edge of the rotor support [24] (¶ 0051 recites “the rotor holder 24 is further provided with an annular carbon fiber ring 25 for limiting the outer circumferences… the annular carbon fiber ring is placed in the outer circumference direction of the rotor retainer…” – it is noted that fig. 4 shows an exploded view with the sheath detached, but in fig. 3 it is clearly shown on the outer surface of the rotor holder, although the elements are not labeled in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Tang 1, while incorporating a sheath (i.e. of carbon fiber) on the outer surface of the rotor holder, as taught by Tang 2, in order to tightly hold the outer circumference of the rotor, thereby improving structural stability of the rotor, such as by suppressing deformation due to high centrifugal force (Tang 2, ¶ 0051).
19. With respect to claim 16, Tang 1 teaches a drive rotor (see title) comprising at least one stator and at least one motor rotor (see ¶ 0062 – although the paragraph is directed to the embodiment of figs. 2-4, the statement of how the rotor can be used is not limited to an embodiment, only “the present invention” which is taken to be the entire disclosure), wherein each motor rotor comprises:
one rotor core [1], wherein the rotor core [1] comprises one rotor yoke (labeled in the annotated fig. 9 provided below – basically the flat disk not including the teeth 103 and 105) and at least two protruding components [first teeth 103 and second teeth 105] (first teeth 103 shaded in the excerpts by the Examiner – also, see ¶ 0071 of the provided translation), and the at least two protruding components [103/105] are disposed on a first surface (labeled by the Examiner in the joint excerpt) of the rotor yoke;
at least two grooves [“groups” of five mounting positions 101] (each group corresponds to a groove of the claim – the grooves/groups have been circumscribed and labeled by the Examiner in fig. 9), wherein each groove is formed with two adjacent protruding components [103] and the first surface of the rotor yoke (it is noted that second teeth 105, by being different from and smaller than first teeth 103, do not figure into the adjacent-ness of the main protruding components 103);
PNG
media_image1.png
520
1116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least two magnetic steels [2] that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves (see ¶ 0095 which recites “each group of magnetic steel mounting positions 101 comprises a plurality of steel grooves 104 for mounting magnetic steels 2”), wherein a quantity [eight] of the at least two magnetic steels is the same as a quantity of the at least two grooves [eight] (it is clear from figs. 6 and 9 that the quantity for both is eight/8); and
one rotor pressing plate [claw-shaped support 5] that is coupled to the at least two protruding components [103] for fastening the at least two magnetic steels [2] in the at least two grooves (see 0074 which recites “the claw-shaped support 5 comprises an annular support portion 501 and support ribs 502… …the support ribs 502 are uniformly distributed on the annular support portion 501, first screws 6 can sequentially penetrate through the support ribs 502 and the first iron core teeth 103…”),
wherein the one rotor pressing plate [5] comprises one pressing plate ring (labeled in the new annotated excerpt of fig. 6 attached below), at least two first radials, and at least two second radials (first and second radials also labeled), and
PNG
media_image2.png
592
871
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least two first radials and the at least two second radials are disposed between each other, and one end (the radially inner end) of each of the at least two first radials and one end (the radially inner end) of each of the at least two second radials are fastened to the pressing plate ring.
Tang 1 omits a plurality of motor rotors, wherein every two of the motor rotors are disposed on two sides of one stator planar symmetrically.
Tang 2 has already been discussed in the rejection of claim 15, as are the reasons it is analogous to Tang 1.
PNG
media_image12.png
530
1004
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Tang 2 teaches a plurality of motor rotors [front rotor 2 and rear rotor 6], wherein every two of the motor rotors [2/6] are disposed on two sides [right-and-left sides in the excerpts of figs. 1 and 3 above) of one stator [4] planar symmetrically (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Tang 1, while incorporating a dual-rotor-single-stator style package, with a rotor on each side of the stator, as taught by Tang 2, in order to complete the motor of Tang 1. Tang 1 is not silent about the intended use for its rotor, but with the exception of ¶ 0062 the stator, and how many rotors there might be, does not go into any detail about the overall motor and/or its stator, because the disclosure is only directed to the improvements, all of which are in the rotor. Because the yoke is closed on one side by the rotor support plate [4], Tang 1 cannot be of the type of motor having a rotor between two stators. Tang 1 necessarily faces a stator on the side of the pressing plate [7]. Although there do exist motors with a single rotor axially facing a single stator, this is rare because the stator’s other side is bleeding flux which needs to be dealt with. The best way to deal with this, of course, is to have, symmetrically, another rotor, identical to the first, on the other side, and attach it to the same shaft. This doubles the power available from a single stator.
Turning to ¶ 0062 of Tang 1, it recites “the disc rotor structure can be used in a middle stator, a two-side rotor or a single stator, a single rotor or a cascade disc motor structure” – emphasis added by Examiner. Tang 1 does not say what the “middle stator” is, but in light of Tang 2, and the Examiner’s argument from the last paragraph, it is clear that Tang 1 is listing the types of axial flux motors there are, in order to say its rotor is applicable to them. The Examiner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art, when reading “middle stator”, would understand that this refers to a device like Tang 2, and would find it obvious to use the rotor of Tang 1 in Tang 2’s configuration, in order to double the power output of the stator. This is supported by how extremely similar the rotors of Tang 1 and Tang 2 are (one-sided, with permanent magnets facing one axial direction and the other axial direction closed off by a yoke and support plate).
21. With respect to claim 18/16, Tang 1 in view of Tang 2 teaches the rotor of claim 16, Tang 1 further teaches wherein the at least two protruding components [103] are disposed on the first surface of the rotor yoke (already established in the rejection of claim 1 above) at regular intervals along a circumferential direction (the intervals are 45o between each adjacent pair of main teeth 103).
21. With respect to claim 19/16 Tang 1 in view of Tang 2 teaches the rotor of claim 16, Tang 1 further teaches wherein the at least two protruding components [103/105] comprise a first component, a second component, and a third component (components labeled in the new fig. 9 excerpt below, the first and third component being of the second teeth 105, the second component being one of the first teeth 103),
wherein heights of the first component [105] and the third component [105] are the same, and
PNG
media_image3.png
508
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
heights of the first component [105] and the second component [103] are different (¶ 0078 recites “the thickness of the first core teeth 1003 is greater than the thickness of the second core teeth 105 in the axial direction of the toroidal core”), wherein each height is a length along a normal direction (axial direction recited in ¶ 0078, also labeled in the fig. 9 excerpt) of the first surface of the rotor yoke, and
the first component [105], the second component [103], and the third component [105] are sequentially connected (in the counterclockwise direction as viewed in fig. 9) and disposed on the first surface of the rotor yoke.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang 1 in view of Tang 2, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Liu (discussed in the rejections of claims 2 and 6-7 above).
With respect to claim 17/16, Tang 1 in view of Tang 2 teaches the rotor of claim , but neither Tang 1 nor Tang 2 teaches at least two sheets that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves, wherein one of the sheets is stacked on one of the magnetic steels, and a quantity of the at least two sheets is the same as the quantity of the at least two magnetic steels, wherein the rotor pressing plate is further configured to fasten the at least two magnetic steels and the at least two sheets in the at least two grooves.
Liu discloses a motor rotor comprising one rotor core [1], wherein the rotor core comprises one rotor yoke and at least two protruding components (all this is laid out in more detail in the rejection of claim 1 under Liu in the prior Office Action) and the at least two protruding components [2] are disposed on a first surface of the rotor yoke;
PNG
media_image9.png
570
903
media_image9.png
Greyscale
at least two grooves, wherein each groove is formed with two adjacent protruding components [2] and the first surface of the rotor yoke; at least two magnetic steels [301] that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves, wherein a quantity of at least two magnetic steels is the same as a quantity of the at least two grooves; and one rotor pressing plate [7 coupled with the top flanges of elements 2] that is coupled to the at least two protruding components [2] for fastening the at least two magnetic steels [301] in the at least two grooves.
PNG
media_image10.png
592
919
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches at least two sheets [upper layers / pole shoes 302] that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves (they are each attached to a permanent magnet, so when the permanent magnets 301 go into the grooves, the sheets 302 go with them – the two are shown together as “3” in fig. 4), wherein one of the sheets [302] is stacked on one of the magnetic steels [301], and a quantity of the at least two sheets [302] is the same as the quantity of the at least two magnetic steels [301] (see fig. 1 excerpt below) , wherein
the rotor pressing plate [7 and the top flanges of elements 2] is further configured to fasten the at least two magnetic steels [301] and the at least two sheets [302] in the at least two grooves (see fig. 4 and ¶ 0034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Tang 1 in view of Tang 2, while incorporating sheets disposed on the magnetic steels, as taught by Liu, in order that the radians of the pole shoes on the surface of the permanent magnet can be adjusted, sinewave air gap flux density is generated, the output torque of the motor is smooth, the sheets can protect the permanent magnets (magnetic steels) against field loss under the action of a demagnetization field, and the field weakening capacity of the motor is improved (Liu, abstract).
22. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 210927238 U (provided with machine translation in the prior Office Action) in view of Tang 1, further in view of Tang 2.
23. With respect to claim 20, Zhang teaches an electric vehicle (¶ 0004 recites “electric automobiles”) comprising at least one drive motor (see ¶ 0004), but omits teaching wherein the at least one drive motor comprises at least one stator and a plurality of motor rotors, wherein every two of the motor rotors are disposed on two sides of one stator planar symmetrically, wherein the each motor rotor comprises: one rotor core, wherein the rotor core comprises one rotor yoke and at least two protruding components, and the at least two protruding components are disposed on a first surface of the rotor yoke; at least two grooves, wherein each the groove is formed with two adjacent protruding components and the first surface of the rotor yoke; at least two magnetic steels that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves, wherein a quantity of the at least two magnetic steels is the same as a quantity of the at least two grooves; and one rotor pressing plate that is coupled to the at least two protruding components for fastening the at least two magnetic steels in the at least two grooves.
Tang 1 and Tang 2 have already been heavily discussed in this Office Action, and are analogous art to Zhang for, like Zhang (see fig. 1) teaching a modular disk rotor wherein pie-piece-shaped magnets are held in pie-piece-shaped compartments defined by a yoke, radial spokes or projections, and a pressing plate or plates.
Tang 1 teaches a drive rotor (see title) comprising at least one stator and at least one motor rotor (see ¶ 0062 – although the paragraph is directed to the embodiment of figs. 2-4, the statement of how the rotor can be used is not limited to an embodiment, only “the present invention” which is taken to be the entire disclosure), wherein each motor rotor comprises:
one rotor core [1], wherein the rotor core [1] comprises one rotor yoke (labeled in the annotated fig. 9 provided below – basically the flat disk not including the teeth 103 and 105) and at least two protruding components [first teeth 103 and second teeth 105] (first teeth 103 shaded in the excerpts by the Examiner – also, see ¶ 0071 of the provided translation), and the at least two protruding components [103/105] are disposed on a first surface (labeled by the Examiner in the joint excerpt) of the rotor yoke;
at least two grooves [“groups” of five mounting positions 101] (each group corresponds to a groove of the claim – the grooves/groups have been circumscribed and labeled by the Examiner in fig. 9), wherein each groove is formed with two adjacent protruding components [103] and the first surface of the rotor yoke (it is noted that second teeth 105, by being different from and smaller than first teeth 103, do not figure into the adjacent-ness of the main protruding components 103);
PNG
media_image1.png
520
1116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least two magnetic steels [2] that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves (see ¶ 0095 which recites “each group of magnetic steel mounting positions 101 comprises a plurality of steel grooves 104 for mounting magnetic steels 2”), wherein a quantity [eight] of the at least two magnetic steels is the same as a quantity of the at least two grooves [eight] (it is clear from figs. 6 and 9 that the quantity for both is eight/8); and
one rotor pressing plate [claw-shaped support 5] that is coupled to the at least two protruding components [103] for fastening the at least two magnetic steels [2] in the at least two grooves (see 0074 which recites “the claw-shaped support 5 comprises an annular support portion 501 and support ribs 502… …the support ribs 502 are uniformly distributed on the annular support portion 501, first screws 6 can sequentially penetrate through the support ribs 502 and the first iron core teeth 103…”),
wherein the one rotor pressing plate [5] comprises one pressing plate ring (labeled in the new annotated excerpt of fig. 6 attached below), at least two first radials, and at least two second radials (first and second radials also labeled), and
PNG
media_image2.png
592
871
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least two first radials and the at least two second radials are disposed between each other, and one end (the radially inner end) of each of the at least two first radials and one end (the radially inner end) of each of the at least two second radials are fastened to the pressing plate ring.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle of Zhang as an alternate to Zhang’s configuration, as Tang 1 includes advantageous securing/locating elements on the core itself which become part of the magnetic circuit. The benefits of this would be predictable, such as producing a thinner, more powerful rotor, and would be known and expected by a person of ordinary skill.
Neither Zhang nor Tang 1 teaches a plurality of motor rotors, wherein every two of the motor rotors are disposed on two sides of one stator planar symmetrically.
Tang 2 has already been discussed in the rejection of claim 15.
PNG
media_image12.png
530
1004
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Tang 2 teaches a plurality of motor rotors [front rotor 2 and rear rotor 6], wherein every two of the motor rotors [2/6] are disposed on two sides [right-and-left sides in the excerpts of figs. 1 and 3 above) of one stator [4] planar symmetrically (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the vehicle of Zhang in view of Tang 1, while incorporating a dual-rotor-single-stator style package, with a rotor on each side of the stator, as taught by Tang 2, in order to complete the vehicle’s motor as provided in Tang 1. Tang 1 is not silent about the intended use for its rotor, but with the exception of ¶ 0062 the stator, and how many rotors there might be, does not go into any detail about the overall motor and/or its stator, because the disclosure is only directed to the improvements, all of which are in the rotor. Because the yoke is closed on one side by the rotor support plate [4], Tang 1 cannot be of the type of motor having a rotor between two stators. Tang 1 necessarily faces a stator on the side of the pressing plate [7]. Although there do exist motors with a single rotor axially facing a single stator, this is rare because the stator’s other side is bleeding flux which needs to be dealt with. The best way to deal with this, of course, is to have, symmetrically, another rotor, identical to the first, on the other side, and attach it to the same shaft. This doubles the power available from a single stator.
Turning to ¶ 0062 of Tang 1, it recites “the disc rotor structure can be used in a middle stator, a two-side rotor or a single stator, a single rotor or a cascade disc motor structure” – emphasis added by Examiner. Tang 1 does not say what the “middle stator” is, but in light of Tang 2, and the Examiner’s argument from the last paragraph, it is clear that Tang 1 is listing the types of axial flux motors there are, in order to say its rotor is applicable to them. The Examiner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art, when reading “middle stator”, would understand that this refers to a device like Tang 2, and would find it obvious to use the rotor of Tang 1 in Tang 2’s configuration, in order to double the power output of the stator. This is supported by how extremely similar the rotors of Tang 1 and Tang 2 are (one-sided, with permanent magnets facing one axial direction and the other axial direction closed off by a yoke and support plate).
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
25. The following is a statement of the Examiner’s reasons for allowance.
26. With respect to claim 8, and claim 9 which depends on it, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a motor rotor, comprising:
one rotor core, wherein the rotor core comprises one rotor yoke and at least two protruding components, and the at least two protruding components are disposed on a first surface of the rotor yoke;
at least two grooves, wherein each groove is formed with two adjacent protruding components and the first surface of the rotor yoke;
at least two magnetic steels that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves, wherein a quantity of the at least two magnetic steels is the same as a quantity of the at least two grooves; and
wherein the one rotor pressing plate comprises one pressing plate ring, at least two first radials, and at least two second radials, and
wherein the at least two first radials and the at least two second radials are disposed between each other, and one end of each of the at least two first radials and one of each of the at least two second radials are fastened to the pressing plate ring;
one rotor pressing plate that is coupled to the at least two protruding components for fastening the at least two magnetic steels in the at least two grooves;
wherein the at least two protruding components comprise a first component, a second component, and a third component,
wherein heights of the first component and the third component are the same, and heights of the first component and the second component are different, wherein the height is a length along a normal direction of the first surface of the rotor yoke, and
the first component, the second component, and the third component are sequentially connected and disposed on the first surface of the rotor yoke; and
wherein a quantity of the at least two first radials is the same as a quantity of the at least two second radials, and is the same as a quantity of the protruding components and the at least two first radials, wherein a distance between a first radial and a second radial that are adjacent is equal to a distance between the first component and the third component.
27. The Examiner could find no evidence in the prior art of a pressing plate that constrains individual permanent magnets in an axial flux disk motor, comprising paired radials which, according to the language of the claim, would mathematically result in there being twice as many total radials as the number of protrusions on the first surface of the core/yoke, and wherein a distance between the first radial and second radial that are adjacent is equal to a distance between the first component and the third component.
28. With respect to claim 10, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a motor rotor, comprising:
one rotor core, wherein the rotor core comprises one rotor yoke and at least two protruding components, and the at least two protruding components are disposed on a first surface of the rotor yoke;
at least two grooves, wherein each groove is formed with two adjacent protruding components and the first surface of the rotor yoke;
at least two magnetic steels that are separately disposed in the at least two grooves, wherein a quantity of the at least two magnetic steels is the same as a quantity of the at least two grooves; and
one rotor pressing plate that is coupled to the at least two protruding components for fastening the at least two magnetic steels in the at least two grooves;
wherein the one rotor pressing plate comprises one pressing plate ring, at least two first radials, and at least two second radials, and
wherein the at least two first radials and the at least two second radials are disposed between each other, and one end of each of the at least two first radials and one of each of the at least two second radials are fastened to the pressing plate ring;
wherein the at least two protruding components comprise a first component, a second component, and a third component,
wherein heights of the first component and the third component are the same, and heights of the first component and the second component are different, wherein the height is a length along a normal direction of the first surface of the rotor yoke, and
the first component, the second component, and the third component are sequentially connected and disposed on the first surface of the rotor yoke;
wherein the first component and the third component each comprise at least one first fastening structure, and at least two first radials and at least two second radials each comprise at least one second fastening structure, wherein the at least two second fastening structures are coupled to the at least two first fastening structures in a one-to-one correspondence, to fasten the rotor pressing plate to the rotor core.
29. Tang 1’s first and third components do not have fastening structures that can communicate with radials between the magnets or above the core. The remainder of the prior art reviewed by the Examiner fails to teach a configuration which would solve this deficiency of Tang 1 in a way that would result in a radial (of Tang’s pressing plate) being attached to a first component and another radial being attached to a third component, Tang 1 already having been defined (see rejection of claim 4 above) such that the first and third components are under the permanent magnets when the rotor is assembled, and not available for connection to structures on the top side of the permanent magnets or between them.
Conclusion
30. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
31. An updated/extended search was performed to find references comprising permanent magnets made of steel. PTO Form 892 now cites a few new references (US 2,695,370 A, US 2,383,969 A, US 1,140,155 A, and US 1,678,001 A) that the Examiner believes establish that the Applicant’s device is operable using steel magnets.
31. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834