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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/02/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 12-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thiele et al. (herein Thiele) (US 2018/0219441) in view of Nakahara et al. (herein Nakahara) (CN 1744407, English translation appended). Regarding Claim 1:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses a stator (500) of a motor (10, see paragraph [0098]), the stator (500) comprising a stator core (510, 512) the stator core includes a plurality of thin plates (laminated sheets) stacked in a stacking direction (as mentioned in paragraph [0100], stator core portion 510 is formed from laminated sheets that are stacked. Also see paragraph [0096] that mentions stacked thin, flat sheets), wherein the thin plates (510) form: a first material region (510) formed of an anisotropic material in the stacking direction; and a second material region (formed by 512 between each two adjacent regions 510) formed of an isotropic material (as mentioned in paragraph [0102], stator segments 510 are made of laminated steel which is anisotropic and segments 512 are made up of SMC which is isotropic).It is noted that the second material region is formed between the regions formed by the first material region and so is not directly formed by the plurality of thing plates in the stacking region. Broadly interpreted, the two adjacent first material regions form a boundary for a second material region formed therebetween such that the thin plates form both regions. However, Thiele fails to explicitly disclose that the thin plates by themselves form the first material region and the second material region in the stacking direction. Nevertheless, Nakahara discloses a similar stator core in Figure 1 (also see the 1st paragraph under the mode for invention section), comprising an anisotropic electrical steel plate laminated steel sheet assembly (10) and an isotropic electrical steel plate laminated steel sheet assembly (11) that are stacked together in the stacking direction (as seen in Figure 1). This arrangement allows for the anisotropic region of the stacked thin plates (10) to easily pass magnetic flux through them while the isotropic region of stacked thin plates (11) prevents local heating of the core (see paragraphs 2-3 in the mode for invention section). Hence, based on Nakahara’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Thiele’s first material region (510) formed of stacked anisotropic thin plates in the stacking direction to include further a stacked region of isotropic thin plates in the stacking direction (as taught by Nakahara) since doing so would ensure prevention of locating heating of the core (as taught by Nakahara). Note: The design structure of Thiele’s core would remain substantially the same as previously disclosed and only the first material region (510) would be further modified to include thin plates of isotropic material in the stacking direction (as taught by Nakahara). Thiele’s second material region would include the added isotropic thin plates and also include the region denoted as 512 since this is also formed in the stacking region between adjacent sections denoted as 510. Regarding Claim 2:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the stator (500), wherein the stator core (510, 512) comprises: a straight magnetic flux section (510) where a magnetic flux is formed parallel to the axial direction of the axial flux motor (as evident from Figure 20); and a curved magnetic flux section (512) where an angle is formed by the magnetic flux and the axial direction thereof (512 is curved as seen in Figure 20 such that there would be a magnetic flux angle with respect to the axial direction), wherein the straight magnetic flux section (510) is formed of the anisotropic material (as mentioned in paragraph [0102], stator segments 510 are made of laminated steel which is anisotropic) and the curved magnetic flux section is formed of the isotropic material (512 is made of soft magnetic composite SMC which is isotropic, see paragraph [0102]).Regarding Claim 4:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the stator (500), wherein the first material region (510) and the second material region (512) are partitioned based on a direction of a magnetic flux formed in the stator core (as seen in Figure 20, 510 is partitioned from 512 and as mentioned in paragraph [0102]: “The flux will spend some distance in laminated steel (i.e., laminated tooth segments 510), and some in SMC (i.e., moldable tooth segments 512).”).Regarding Claim 5:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the stator (500), wherein the magnetic flux has an angle with respect to the axial direction of the axial flux motor in the second material region (512 is curved as seen in Figure 20 such that there would be a magnetic flux angle with respect to the axial direction).Regarding Claim 8:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the stator (500), wherein: the isotropic material is a non-oriented electrical steel sheet or a soft magnetic composite (SMC) material (512 is made of soft magnetic composite SMC which is isotropic, see paragraph [0102]); and the anisotropic material is a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet (510 is formed from laminated electrical steel sheets which is anisotropic, see paragraphs [0096] and [0102])Regarding Claim 9:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the stator (500), wherein the stator core (510, 512) has a coil (514) wound around the stator core (see Figure 20).Regarding Claim 10:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses an axial flux motor (10, see paragraph [0037]) comprising: a rotor (18) including a plurality of permanent magnets (each rotor module 34 comprises a plurality of permanent magnets, see paragraph [0038]); and a stator (500, see paragraph [0098]) disposed in an axial direction of the rotor and the axial flux motor (500 would be arranged as stator 24 is arranged in Figures 1-2, i.e., in the axial direction of the rotor 18 and the axial flux motor 10), the stator (500) including a stator core (510, 512) having a coil (514) mounted on the stator core (as seen in Figure 20), wherein the stator core includes a plurality of thin plates (laminated sheets) stacked in a stacking direction (as mentioned in paragraph [0100], stator core portion 510 is formed from laminated sheets that are stacked. Also see paragraph [0096] that mentions stacked thin, flat sheets), wherein the thin plates (510) form: a first material region (510) formed of an anisotropic material; and a second material region (formed by 512 between each two adjacent regions 510) formed of an isotropic material (as mentioned in paragraph [0102], stator segments 510 are made of laminated steel which is anisotropic and segments 512 are made up of SMC which is isotropic).It is noted that the second material region is formed between the regions formed by the first material region and so is not directly formed by the plurality of thin plates in the stacking region. Broadly interpreted, the two adjacent first material regions form a boundary for a second material region formed therebetween such that the thin plates form both regions. However, Thiele fails to explicitly disclose that the thin plates by themselves form the first material region and the second material region in the stacking direction. Nevertheless, Nakahara discloses a similar stator core in Figure 1 (also see the 1st paragraph under the mode for invention section), comprising an anisotropic electrical steel plate laminated steel sheet assembly (10) and an isotropic electrical steel plate laminated steel sheet assembly (11) that are stacked together in the stacking direction (as seen in Figure 1). This arrangement allows for the anisotropic region of the stacked thin plates (10) to easily pass magnetic flux through them while the isotropic region of stacked thin plates (11) prevents local heating of the core (see paragraphs 2-3 in the mode for invention section). Hence, based on Nakahara’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Thiele’s first material region (510) formed of stacked anisotropic thin plates in the stacking direction to include further a stacked region of isotropic thin plates in the stacking direction (as taught by Nakahara) since doing so would ensure prevention of locating heating of the core (as taught by Nakahara). Note: The design structure of Thiele’s core would remain substantially the same as previously disclosed and only the first material region (510) would be further modified to include thin plates of isotropic material in the stacking direction (as taught by Nakahara). Thiele’s second material region would include the added isotropic thin plates and also include the region denoted as 512 since this is also formed in the stacking region between adjacent sections denoted as 510. Regarding Claim 12:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the axial flux motor (10), wherein the first material region (510) and the second material region (512) are partitioned based on a direction of a magnetic flux formed in the stator core (as seen in Figure 20, 510 is partitioned from 512 and as mentioned in paragraph [0102]: “The flux will spend some distance in laminated steel (i.e., laminated tooth segments 510), and some in SMC (i.e., moldable tooth segments 512).”).Regarding Claim 13:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the axial flux motor (10), wherein the magnetic flux has an angle with respect to the axial direction of the axial flux motor in the second material region (512 is curved as seen in Figure 20 such that there would be a magnetic flux angle with respect to the axial direction).
Regarding Claim 15:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the axial flux motor (10), wherein the stator core (510, 512) comprises: a straight magnetic flux section (510) where a magnetic flux is formed parallel to the axial direction of the axial flux motor (as evident from Figure 20); and a curved magnetic flux section (512) where an angle is formed by the magnetic flux and the axial direction of the axial flux motor (512 is curved as seen in Figure 20 such that there would be a magnetic flux angle with respect to the axial direction), wherein the straight magnetic flux section (510) is formed of the anisotropic material (as mentioned in paragraph [0102], stator segments 510 are made of laminated steel which is anisotropic) and the curved magnetic flux section is formed of the isotropic material (512 is made of soft magnetic composite SMC which is isotropic, see paragraph [0102]).
Regarding Claim 16:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the axial flux motor (10), wherein: the isotropic material is a non-oriented electrical steel sheet or a soft magnetic composite (SMC) material (512 is made of soft magnetic composite SMC which is isotropic, see paragraph [0102]); and the anisotropic material is a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet (510 is formed from laminated electrical steel sheets which is anisotropic, see paragraphs [0096] and [0102]). Regarding Claim 17:Thiele fails to disclose a bobbin around the stator core. However, in an alternate embodiment shown in Figures 1-2, 9-10 and 15-16, Thiele discloses the axial flux motor (10, see paragraph [0037]) wherein the stator (200) comprises: a bobbin (244) disposed to surround the stator core (244 surrounds at least some portions of the stator core 240 as evident from Figure 16 and paragraph [0085]), wherein the coil (258) is wound around the bobbin (see paragraph [0086]); and a first housing (208, see Figure 10) and a second housing (220) respectively mounted on a first side of the bobbin (208 is at the bottom side of the bobbin which is part of 210 as seen in Figure 10) and a second side thereof (220 is at a top side of the bobbin as seen in Figure 10).Hence, based on Thiele’s alternated embodiment, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a bobbin (of the type disclosed in the alternate embodiment) to surround the stator core (510, 512) in the manner described above, since doing so would ensure proper winding orientation and ensure that the stator coils stay in place during assembly and repair. Regarding Claim 18:In Figures 1-2 and 20, Thiele discloses the axial flux motor (10), further comprising a shaft (32) configured to rotate with the rotor (see paragraph [0038]) and formed to pass through the stator (as seen in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele et al. (herein Thiele) (US 2018/0219441) in view of Nakahara et al. (herein Nakahara) (CN 1744407, English translation appended) and as evidenced by Fischer et al. (herein Fischer) (US 2017/0288476). Regarding Claims 6-7 and 14:While Thiele discloses the angle (see rejections of claims 5 or 13), the specific angle is not mentioned. However, it is known in the art that stator cores are designed with angles to optimize the flux density in order to improve the efficiency of the motor. For instance, in paragraph [0043] and Figure 4, Fischer discloses a stator core with a portion (36) that is oriented at an angle of less than 25° (i.e., along easy axis M) with respect to an axial direction (i.e., direction of coil axis M) in order to reduce the magnetic flux leakage (as further elaborated in paragraphs [0010]-[0011]). Hence, it can be seen that the orientation of the angle between the magnetic flux and an axial direction of the stator core is an result effective optimizable variable that can be optimized to reduce leakage of magnetic flux and improve flux density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the angle to be in the range of 10° to 20° (per claims 6 and 14) or to have a value of 15° (per claim 7) to reduce the magnetic flux leakage (common knowledge in the art and as evidenced by Fischer), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the new grounds of rejection being used in the current office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights