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 . Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US 20090295245 A1) in view of Mayeur et al. (US 20210265884 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses a rotor (11, fig. 2) for an axial flux electric machine, said rotor having a disc shape (11, fig. 2) centred about a longitudinal axis (axis O, fig. 2) and comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
350
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a body comprising a hub (37, fig. 3) from which a plurality of arms (34, fig. 3) extend;
a plurality of magnet blocks (42, fig. 3), each magnet block being disposed between two adjacent arms (fig. 2); and
a circular ring (36, fig. 3) disposed at the periphery of the rotor and surrounding the magnet blocks (figs. 2 and 3), wherein:
PNG
media_image3.png
623
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
414
495
media_image4.png
Greyscale
one of an inner face of the circular ring and an outer face of each of the magnet blocks has a first depression (38, fig. 4), the other having a complementary shape (42b, figs. 4 and 5); see also para [0118]: “In addition, an annular groove 38 is formed on an inner circumferential surface of the outer circumferential side cylindrical portion 36 of the rotor frame 33, and clamping portions 42b (fitting portions) of the magnetic members 42 and projecting portions 43a (fitting portions) of the sub-permanent magnet pieces 43, which will both be described later on, are made to fit in the annular groove 38 so formed.”); and
the rotor comprises a plurality of holding means (hooking plate 44, fig. 3), each arranged between the body and a magnet block so as to urge said magnet block against the circular ring (see claim 3: “hooking plates, which are provided between the other end faces in the radial direction of the rotor of the magnetic members and the rotor frame, and are adapted to be brought into engagement with the clamping portions of the magnet sheets which configure the other end faces in the radial direction of the rotor of the magnetic members.”), with the circular ring and said magnet block nested at said first depression.
Abe does not disclose the circular band is dismountable.
PNG
media_image5.png
422
392
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mayeur teaches a similar rotor, see fig. 3, wherein the circular band is dismountable and instead of placing a single magnet block between adjacent arms, a plurality of magnet pieces are used to produce a magnet structure that is mechanically much stronger than a single magnet block (“[0044] The applicant has discovered that a plurality of unitary magnets in a magnet structure results in a magnet structure that has a mechanical strength that is much greater while retaining magnetic properties that are practically similar to those of a single magnet having a surface area equal to n times the elementary surface area of the n magnets when there are n unitary magnets”).
To produce a magnet structure that is mechanically much stronger than a single magnet block, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abe’s rotor design in such a way that: the circular band is dismountable.
Regarding claim 2, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein said holding means are removable (see the discrete hooking plates in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein each of said holding means is disposed in a housing provided in the body, said housing comprising an opening designed to introduce said holding means in said housing, said opening having a size less than that of said holding means (referring to fig. 3 and relying on the fact that the holding members are press fitted into the opening, it’s implied that the opening size must be less than the width of the holding means).
Regarding claim 4, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein said holding means are springs or clips (they are clips, see hooking plates 44 in fig. 3) or fretted pin gauges.
Regarding claim 5, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein each of said holding means is surrounded between an inner face of a magnet block and the body (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein each of said holding means is eccentric with respect to the thickness of the body about the longitudinal axis (see the holding means 44 and body (hub 37+ arms 34) in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein each of said arms comprises two second depressions or protrusions opposite one another and extending in length in an extension direction of said arm, and wherein each of said magnet blocks has two side faces, each comprising a third depression or protrusion of shape complementary to that of the second depression or protrusion of the arm with which said side face is in contact (see para [0176]: “Axial outer radial corner portions of the magnetic member 142 are each chamfered so as to be formed into a chamfered portion 142c. This chamfered portion 142c is formed so that the magnetic member 142 continues to an axial lateral surface of the sub-magnet portion 143 without any difference in level existing therebetween, and this configuration has an advantage of reducing cogging torque and torque ripple.”, since the magnets have depressions or protrusions, for proper engagement, it’s implied that each said arm as complementary depressions or protrusions).
Regarding claim 8, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 7, but does not disclose: wherein each of said second depressions or protrusions has a depth or respectively a height increasing by moving closer to the longitudinal axis.
PNG
media_image6.png
421
392
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Mayeur teaches a similar rotor, see fig. 3, above, wherein the width of each arm is reduced radially. Since the width of each arm is reduced in the radial direction, it’s reasonable to expect that the size of each protrusion or depression on sides of each arm is also reduced to not impact the strength of the each arm.
To increase the mechanical strength of each magnet block, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abe’s design in such a way that: wherein each of said second depressions or protrusions has a depth or respectively a height increasing by moving closer to the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 9, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein each of said magnet blocks comprises a plurality of single magnets glued or fretted in a peripheral support.
Mayeur teaches, as discussed regarding claim 11, a similar rotor wherein instead of a single magnet block, a plurality of sub-magnets are used and glued together: “[0044] The applicant has discovered that a plurality of unitary magnets in a magnet structure results in a magnet structure that has a mechanical strength that is much greater while retaining magnetic properties that are practically similar to those of a single magnet having a surface area equal to n times the elementary surface area of the n magnets when there are n unitary magnets”; Mayeur further teaches: “[0099] As illustrated in FIG. 5c, in a magnet structure 10, the unitary magnets 4 are directly adjacent to one another and are in partial contact. Unitary magnets 4 are adhesively connected by a deposit of adhesive.”
To increase the mechanical strength of each magnet block, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abe’s design in such a way that: each of said magnet blocks comprises a plurality of single magnets glued or fretted in a peripheral support.
Regarding claim 10, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein anti-vibration means are provided between each magnet block and the hub (implied, para [0022]: “According to the third aspect of the invention, by mounting the hooking plates adapted to be brought into engagement with the corresponding clamping portions on the other end faces in the radial direction of the rotor of the magnetic members between the other end faces of the magnetic members and the rotor frame, the magnetic members can be positioned properly even at the opposite sides to the sides thereof where the fitting portions are provided. In addition, the hooking plates may be fixed to the rotor frame by the press fit ring or may be fixed to the rotor frame with an annular ring and screws.”, press fit ring or screws can suppress vibration).
Regarding claim 11, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses a method for assembling the rotor according to claim 1, the method comprising the following steps:
Inserting the magnet blocks between the arms (see fig. 3);
implementing the circular ring around the magnet blocks (dismountable circular disk taught by Mayeur); and
activating the holding means between the body and the magnet blocks so as to urge the magnet blocks against a circular ring (implied, see also discussion regarding claim 1; see also para [0023] in Mayeur: “The binding band contributes, if necessary, to the radial hold of the magnets in addition to the hold guaranteed by the external layer of composite coating.”).
Regarding claim 12, Abe discloses a method for disassembling a rotor according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose: the method comprising the following steps:
deactivating the holding means so as to separate the magnet blocks from the circular ring;
disassembling the circular ring from the periphery of the magnet blocks; and
disassembling at least one of the magnet blocks from between the arms.
However, removing magnets from a rotor held by a circular ring and holding means is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
To disassemble the rotor in claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the disassembling method would require the steps of: deactivating the holding means so as to separate the magnet blocks from the circular ring; removing the circular ring from the periphery of the magnet blocks; and removing at least one of the magnet blocks from between the arms.
Regarding claim 13, Abe as modified by Mayeur in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein the circular ring is only in contact with the magnet blocks.
Mayeur teaches, see para [0088], that “The branches 3 can optionally be connected to the binding band 8 by their tapered extremity 3b.”
To create a rotor wherein each magnet block has an increased mechanical strength per Mayeur’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the circular ring is only in contact with the magnet blocks.
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 MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834