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, 2, 4, 5, 8-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fratila et al. (US 2024/0120785 A1) in view of Koechlin (US 2015/0229170 A1).
RE claim 1, Fratila teaches a rotor 30 (Fig.1) for a rotary electric machine (¶ 2), comprising a rotor body 33 comprising laminations stacked one on top of the other (¶ 19), the rotor body 33 comprising a plurality of recesses 10, at least some of the recesses 10 accommodating one or more permanent magnets (¶ 105) defining poles of the rotor 30 (¶ 105),
the recesses 10 of a pole being arranged in at least a first row 11 and a second row 12 of recesses 10 which are not parallel to one another (Fig.1),
the first row 11 of recesses 10 comprising at least three recesses 10 arranged in a U shape, with at least one central recess 10 and two lateral recesses 10,
the second row 12 of recesses 10 comprising recesses 10 arranged in a V shape (Fig.1),
the central recess 10 of the first row 11 being separated from each of the lateral recesses 11 by a material bridge (B) (see Fig.1 and ¶ 112), each of the material bridges extending along an axis (Z) of the material bridge (B) (19),
at least one of the lateral recesses 10 of the first row comprising a notch 15 that extends from the lateral recess 10 to the central recess 10,
the notch 15 having an edge (E) located on a side of a lamination strip between the two rows 11, 12 of recesses 10 that forms an angle (ALE) with an axis (B1) perpendicular to an axis (A1) of the pole (Fig.1),
the edge (E) being rectilinear or at least partially rectilinear (Fig.1).
[AltContent: textbox (A1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ALE)][AltContent: textbox (B1)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Edge (E))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
602
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fratila does not teach the central recess of the first row being able to be free of a permanent magnet and the material bridges extending along an axis of the material bridge which forms a non-zero angle with an axis of the pole.
Koechlin suggests/teaches:
that magnet can be arranged in lateral branch of recess and not central branch of recess (¶ 47) or vice versa (¶ 47, 73). The disposition of the recesses makes it possible to concentrate the flux of the magnets and to achieve appreciable performances (¶ 15).
the material bridges 10 extending along an axis (Z) of the material bridge which forms a non-zero angle (α) with an axis (X) of the pole (Figs.3, 8 and 9) such that coefficient of safety in fatigue is at its maximum for said configuration (¶ 71).
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 Fratila by having the central recess of the first row being able to be free of a permanent magnet and the material bridges extending along an axis of the material bridge which forms a non-zero angle with an axis of the pole, as suggested and taught by Koechlin, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Koechlin further teaches the permanent magnets accommodated in the lateral recesses 10 of the first row 11 extend in cross section along a large axis forming an angle β2 with an axis perpendicular to an axis of the pole (P), and the permanent magnets accommodated in the recesses of the second row 12 extend in cross section along a large axis forming an angle α2 with an axis perpendicular to an axis of the pole (P), wherein β2>α2 (see annotated Fig.5 below).
[AltContent: textbox (α2)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A1)][AltContent: textbox (N)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (β2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
606
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RE claim 4/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches the two lateral recesses 10 of the first row comprise a notch (N) that extends from the lateral recess toward the central recess 10 (see annotated Fig.1 above).
RE claim 5/4, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches the notch (N) has an edge that forms an angle (α2) with an axis perpendicular to an axis (A1) of the pole.
RE claim 8/1, as discussed above, Koechlin further teaches the material bridges 10 come closer to the axis (X) of the pole 4 as they approach the air gap and move away from an axis of rotation of the rotor (Fig.3).
RE claim 9/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches the lateral recesses 10 of the first row 11 are provided with permanent magnets (¶ 129).
RE claim 10/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches at least one of the recesses 10 of the second row 12, comprises a notch (N) that extends from said recess 10 toward the other recess 10 of the second row 12 (Fig.1).
RE claim 11/10, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches the notch (N) has an edge that forms an angle (α2) with an axis perpendicular to an axis (A1) of the pole (Fig.1).
RE claim 12/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches the two recesses 10 of the second row 12 form therebetween a material bridge (B), said material bridge (B) extending along an axis (A1) of the material bridge that extends along an axis (A1) of the pole (see annotated Fig.1).
RE claim 13/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches rotor comprises 6 poles (¶ 87).
RE claim 14/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches at least one recess 10 comprises at least one stop 17 (Fig.4d) for holding the permanent magnet intended to be accommodated in the recess 10 (¶ 128).
RE claim 15/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches a rotary electric machine (¶ 2, 79), comprising a stator (¶ 85) and a rotor as defined in claim 1 (discussed above).
RE claim 18/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches all of the recesses 10 accommodate one or more permanent magnets defining poles of the rotor (Fig.1 and ¶ 11).
RE claim 19/1, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches the second row 12 of recesses 10 comprises two recesses 10 arranged in a V shape (Fig.1).
RE claim 20/10, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila further teaches the two recesses 10 of the second row 12 each comprise a notch (N) that extends from said recess 10 toward the other recess 10 of the second row 12.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fratila in view of Koechlin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tang (US 2018/0241262 A1).
RE claim 3/2, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Gieras does not teach the ratio β2/α2 is between 1 and 1.25, excluding the value 1.
Tang suggests that orientation of angle of magnets 112, 138 are result effective variables whose value can be adjusted (see equation 2, Fig.2 and ¶ 24-26) to reduce torque ripple (¶ 21, 31).
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 Fratila in view of Koechlin by having the ratio β2/α2 is between 1 and 1.25, excluding the value 1, as taught by Tang, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fratila in view of Koechlin as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Matsunobu (JP 2007274798 A, the machine translation of which has been provided).
RE claim 6/4, Fratila in view of Koechlin has been discussed above. Fratila does not teach the notch has an edge that extends at least partially parallel to an edge of the central recess.
Matsunobu teaches the notch (N) (see annotated Fig.4) has an edge (E1) that extends at least partially parallel to an edge (E2) of the central recess 9d (see annotated Fig.6). Matsunobu further suggests that the surface and shape of magnet can be adjusted to optimize output and centrifugal stress concentration at the time of high-speed rotation can be easily avoided (see translation page 5 last ¶ and page 6 1st ¶).
[AltContent: textbox ((E1))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ((E2))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Notch (N))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
582
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Fratila in view of Koechlin by having the notch has an edge that extends at least partially parallel to an edge of the central recess, as taught by Matsunobu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 7/6, Fratila in view of Koechlin and Matsunobu has been discussed above. Fratila does not teach the angle (γ) is between 10° and 40°.
Koechlin suggests the angle α (of bridge 10, see Figs.3) is a result effective variable whose value can be adjusted to greater than 5° and (e.g.: 15°, see ¶ 66) such that the coefficient of safety in fatigue is at its maximum for the configuration (¶ 71).
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 Fratila in view of Matsunobu by having the angle (γ) is between 10° and 40°, as taught by Koechlin, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claims 16/6 and 17/6, Fratila in view of Koechlin and Matsunobu has been discussed above. Fratila does not teach the angle (γ) is between 10° and 40° (claim 16) and specifically is 25°
Koechlin suggests the angle α (of bridge 10, see Figs.3) is a result effective variable whose value can be adjusted to greater than 5° such that the coefficient of safety in fatigue is at its maximum for the configuration (¶ 71).
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 Fratila in view of Matsunobu by having the angle (γ) is between 10° and 40° (such as 25°), as suggested by Koechlin, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fratila et al. (US 2024/0120785 A1) in view of Koechlin (US 2015/0229170 A1) and Tang (US 2018/0241262 A1).
RE claim 21, Fratila teaches a rotor 30 (Fig.1) for a rotary electric machine, comprising a rotor body 33 comprising laminations stacked one on top of the other (¶ 19), the rotor body 33 comprising a plurality of recesses 10, at least some of the recesses 10 accommodating one or more permanent magnets (¶ 105) defining poles of the rotor 30 (¶ 105),
the recesses 10 of a pole being arranged in at least a first row 11 and a second row 12 of recesses 10 which are not parallel to one another (Fig.1), the first row of recesses 10 comprising at least three recesses arranged in a U shape, with at least one central recess 10 and two lateral recesses 10,
the second row 12 of recesses 10 comprising recesses 10 arranged in a V shape (Fig.1),
the central recess 10 of the first row being separated from each of the lateral recesses by a material bridge (B) (Fig.1 and ¶ 112), each of the material bridges extending along an axis of the material bridge,
at least one of the lateral recesses 10 of the first row 11 comprising a notch 15 that extends from the lateral recess 10 to the central recess 10,
the notch having an edge (E) that forms an angle (ALE) (annotated Fig.1 above) with an axis (B1) perpendicular to an axis (A1) of the pole, the edge (E) being rectilinear or at least partially rectilinear (Fig.1),
wherein the permanent magnets accommodated in the lateral recesses 10 of the first row 11 extend in cross section along a large axis forming an angle (β2) with an axis perpendicular to an axis (A1) of the pole, and the permanent magnets accommodated in the recesses of the second row 12 extend in cross section along a large axis forming an angle α2 with an axis perpendicular to an axis of the pole (P), wherein β2> α2
Fratila does not teach:
the central recess of the first row being able to be free of a permanent magnet
the material bridges extending along an axis of the material bridge which forms a non-zero angle with an axis of the pole.
wherein the ratio β2/α2 is between 1 and 1.25, excluding the value 1.
RE (i) & (ii), Koechlin suggests/teaches:
that magnet can be arranged in lateral branch of recess and not central branch of recess (¶ 47) or vice versa (¶ 47, 73). The disposition of the recesses makes it possible to concentrate the flux of the magnets and to achieve appreciable performances (¶ 15).
the material bridges 10 extending along an axis (Z) of the material bridge which forms a non-zero angle (α) with an axis (X) of the pole (Figs.3, 8 and 9) such that coefficient of safety in fatigue is at its maximum for said configuration (¶ 71).
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 Fratila by having the central recess of the first row being able to be free of a permanent magnet and the material bridges extending along an axis of the material bridge which forms a non-zero angle with an axis of the pole, as suggested and taught by Koechlin, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (iii), Tang suggests that orientation of angle of magnets 112, 138 are result effective variables whose value can be adjusted (see equation 2, Fig.2 and ¶ 24-26) to reduce torque ripple (¶ 21, 31).
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 Fratila in view of Koechlin by having the ratio β2/α2 is between 1 and 1.25, excluding the value 1, as taught by Tang, 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