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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1:
1. Applicant argues that modifying Fatemi in view of Liang would not be obvious, and would teach away from Fatemi’s invention. Examiner disagrees. As disclosed in Oechslen (DE 10 2016 101 705 A1), the use of either stranded winding or hairpin winding interchangeably is well-known within the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of changing a stranded winding with a hairpin winding. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
2. Applicant argues that changing Litz wire to hairpin winding would require extensive redesign as Liang’s hairpin windings require specific shape and arrangement. The argument is not persuasive as Applicant is arguing about Liang individually, on how hairpin windings are not flexible like Litz wires, and not to the combination of Fatemi in view of Liang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to easily replace Litz wires with hairpin windings, as disclosed by Oechslen (DE 10 2016 101 705 A1).
3. Applicant argues that replacing Litz wires with hairpin windings would increase manufacturing complexity and reliability risks. Examiner disagrees. Hairpins are easier to automate for manufacturing compared to Litz wires, as Hairpins are more rigid and does not break easily, and the use of welding to connect the winding would increase reliability compared Litz wires which are prone to breakage.
4. Applicant argues that the challenge of creating balanced parallel circuits would render the combination of Fatemi in view of Liang non-obvious. Examiner disagrees. The challenges with replacing Litz wires with hairpins does not render a combination non-obvious, as hairpins has distinct advantages compared to Litz wires, and one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the advantages of using hairpins outweighs the disadvantages for their invention. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Claim 11:
1. Applicant argues that Fatemi explicitly teaches away from high-volage applications. Examiner disagrees. Fatemi does not disclose that the electric machine is designed solely for low-voltage applications nor does it disclose that the electric machine cannot be used in high-voltage application. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
2. Applicant argues that inputting 300-400 V into 16-20 turns of coil would result in a high BEMF constant, which would render the machine inoperable. If this were to be true, applicant’s claim 11 would also have the same problem and would be inoperable. Also, different types of Litz wires are able to withstand high voltages for power transformer uses, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able easily choose a Litz wire to be operable with their invention. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
3. Applicant argues that the specific turns and voltage creates a synergistic effect not disclosed by Fatemi or Colavincenzo. Applicant is arguing against references individually instead of as a combination. Fatemi discloses that “the DC source may be a suitable voltage level” giving an example of 12V to 100V, indicating that the DC source can be changed to any level desired by one of ordinary skill in the art. Colavincenzo explicitly discloses a DC source of 300V-400V to be used, closing the gap between Fatemi and the claim. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 and 14-16, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to objection of claim 1 and rejections of claims 4-5, 15 and 18-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection and rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “Dc nominal input volage comprised between a voltage of 48 volts and a voltage of 600 volts” and “the number of turns per phase in the stator is comprised between 9 and 20”, and the claim also recites “DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts” and “the number of turns per phase is between 16 and 20,” respectively, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For examination purposes, the broader limitation will be used.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatemi et al. (DE 102018113266 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US 2019/0222078 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fatemi discloses a permanent-magnet synchronous rotary electric machine (10) for a self-propelled mobile device (mobile platform), comprising:
a magnet rotor (20) having a number P of pole pairs (between 6-12 poles),
a stator (50) comprising slots (58) and a winding (54) comprising at least three phases (between 3-6 phases), each phase has multiple turns, a turn is formed by a succession of electrical conductors (conductive stranded wire) accommodated in different slots (58) and electrically connected to one another, each slot (58) accommodating multiple electrical conductors (between 1-2 layers),
an inverter-rectifier (inverter) designed, in motor mode, to transform a DC nominal input voltage comprised between a voltage of 48 volts and a voltage of 600 volts into AC supply voltages of a multi-phase system for each phase of the winding (54; between 12V and 100V),
wherein the winding (54) is of the type in which the number of turns N in the stator per phase (between 8-20 turns per phase) is equal to the number E of conductors in a slot (between 1-2 conductors), multiplied by the number P of pole pairs (between 6-12 poles or 3-6 pole pairs) multiplied by the number A of slots per pole and per phase (between 60-96 total slots), all divided by the number B of parallel electrical paths of the conductors in a slot and/or divided by the square root of three if the winding is delta-coupled, wherein the number of turns N per phase in the stator (50) is comprised between 9 and 20 (between 8-20 turns per phase).
Fatemi does not disclose wherein the electrical conductors accommodated in a slot are arms of a pin, the pins being electrically connected by way of their free ends in pairs so as to form the winding.
Liang discloses wherein the electrical conductors (90, 92, 94, 96) accommodated in a slot (34) are arms of a pin (FIG. 3-6), the pins being electrically connected by way of their free ends (110, 120, 128, 132, 146, 147, 162, 164) in pairs so as to form the winding (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Liang to disclose wherein the electrical conductors accommodated in a slot are arms of a pin, the pins being electrically connected by way of their free ends in pairs so as to form the winding, for the advantages of increased power density, thermal management and structural integrity.
While Fatemi in view of Liang does not disclose the functional limitations of “designed, in alternator mode, to supply a DC output voltage comprised between a voltage of 48 volts and a voltage of 600 volts,” Fatemi in view of Liang does disclose all the structural limitations of the claims and that the electric machine can be used as a generator. Thus, Fatemi in view of Liang is inherently capable of the desired functions of the claims. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 3/1, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 1. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns N in the stator per phase is comprised between 9 and 18 (between 8-20 turns per phase), and notably between 9 and 16, and the inverter-rectifier has a nominal voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding claim 4/3, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 3. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns per phase is comprised between 11 and 12 (between 8-20 turns per phase), the number of phases is 6 (between 3-6 phases), the number P of pole pairs is comprised between 5 and 6 (between 6-12 poles or 3-6 pole pairs).
Regarding claim 5/3, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 3. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns per phase is comprised between 13 and 16 (between 8-20 turns per phase), the number of phases is 6 (between 3-6 phases), the number P of pole pairs is comprised between 5 and 6 (between 6-12 poles or 3-6 pole pairs).
Regarding claim 6/3, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 3. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns per phase is comprised between 16 and 18 (between 8-20 turns per phase), the number of phases is 3 (between 3-6 phases), and the number P of pole pairs is comprised between 5 and 6 (between 6-12 poles or 3-6 pole pairs).
Regarding claim 9/1, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 1. Fatemi further discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 8 kW and 50 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 8kW and 50kW.
Regarding claim 16/3, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 3. Fatemi further discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 8 kW and 50 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 8kW and 50kW.
Regarding claim 19/4, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 4. Fatemi further discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 8 kW and 50 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 8kW and 50kW.
Claims 7, 10, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatemi et al. (DE 102018113266 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US 2019/0222078 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colavincenzo (WO 2018/191410 A1).
Regarding claim 7/1, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 1. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns per phase is between 16 and 20 (between 8 and 20 turns per phase).
Fatemi in view of Liang does not disclose the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Liang, further in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10/1, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 1. Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 51 kW and 150 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 51 kW and 150 kW.
Fatemi in view of Liang does not disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Liang, further in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17/3, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 3. Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 51 kW and 150 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 51 kW and 150 kW.
Fatemi in view of Liang does not disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Liang, further in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20/4, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 4. Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 51 kW and 150 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 51 kW and 150 kW.
Fatemi in view of Liang does not disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Liang, further in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatemi et al. (DE 102018113266 A1) in view of Colavincenzo (WO 2018/191410 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Fatemi discloses a permanent-magnet synchronous rotary electric machine (10) for a self-propelled mobile device (mobile platform), comprising:
a magnet rotor (20) having a number P of pole pairs (between 6-12 poles),
a stator (50) comprising slots (58) and a winding (54) comprising at least three phases (between 3-6 phases), each phase has multiple turns, a turn is formed by a succession of electrical conductors (conductive stranded wire) accommodated in different slots (58) and electrically connected to one another, each slot (58) accommodating multiple electrical conductors (between 1-2 layers),
an inverter-rectifier (inverter) designed, in motor mode, to transform a DC nominal input voltage comprised between a voltage of 48 volts and a voltage of 600 volts into AC supply voltages of a multi-phase system for each phase of the winding (54; between 12V and 100V),
wherein the winding (54) is of the type in which the number of turns N in the stator per phase (between 8-20 turns per phase) is equal to the number E of conductors in a slot (between 1-2 conductors), multiplied by the number P of pole pairs (between 6-12 poles or 3-6 pole pairs) multiplied by the number A of slots per pole and per phase (between 60-96 total slots), all divided by the number B of parallel electrical paths of the conductors in a slot and/or divided by the square root of three if the winding is delta-coupled, wherein the number of turns N per phase in the stator (50) is comprised between 9 and 20 (between 8-20 turns per phase), and
wherein the number of turns per phase is between 16 and 20 (between 8 and 20 turns per phase).
Fatemi does not disclose the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
While Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo does not disclose the functional limitations of “designed, in alternator mode, to supply a DC output voltage comprised between a voltage of 48 volts and a voltage of 600 volts,” Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo does disclose all the structural limitations of the claims and that the electric machine can be used as a generator. Thus, Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo is inherently capable of the desired functions of the claims. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 21/11, Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo was discussed above in claim 11. Fatemi further discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 8 kW and 50 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 8kW and 50kW.
Regarding claim 22/11, Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo was discussed above in claim 11. Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 51 kW and 150 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 51 kW and 150 kW.
Fatemi does not disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 8/1 and 18/4, the specific limitation of “wherein the performance ratio is greater than 0.02” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
None of the prior arts discloses an electrical machine having a performance ratio equal to (peak torque x peak mechanical power) / (peak current x number of turns per phase x outside diameter of the machine x length of the machine) greater than 0.02.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, the specific limitation of “wherein the performance ratio is greater than 0.02” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
None of the prior arts discloses an electrical machine having a performance ratio equal to (peak torque x peak mechanical power) / (peak current x number of turns per phase x outside diameter of the machine x length of the machine) greater than 0.02.
Claims 23-34 are allowable for depending upon claim 15.
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 MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/MINKI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights