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 with respect to claim(s) 1/15/2026 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.
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) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seneff et al (US 20090072639 A1) in view of Asano (US 20110133596 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Seneff teaches an electric axial flux machine comprising: a disc-shaped rotor having a main part and having P magnetic poles (fig. 4, structure 50), which are each arranged spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the main part by an identical pole pitch (fig. 4, magnets 12 are arranged in a circumferential direction) , and a disc-shaped stator with Z teeth (fig. 6, stator 72 and paragraph 65 “A slot refers to the spacing between alternating teeth of the stator of the present machine. The number of poles is twice the number of pole pairs that each stator tooth encounters during each rotation of the rotor.”), wherein the P magnetic poles are arranged in an alternating manner in the circumferential direction with a first pole width and a second pole width (see figure 4, all magnets 12 have a width).
Seneff does not teach “the first pole width is different than the second pole width.”
Asano teaches the first pole width is different than the second pole width (fig. 1, magnets 12 and 13 define poles which are of different circumferential width).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the motor of Seneff with the differing pole width of Asano in order to mitigate undesired harmonics and/or cogging torque.
With respect to claim 2, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches wherein the first pole width is in a range of 0.9 [360°/p + (369°/LCM) * 0.5] to 1.1 [360°/p + (360°/LCM) *0.5] and the second pole width is in a range of 0.9 [360°/p−(360°/LCM)*0.5] to 1.1[360°/p−(360°/LCM)*0.5], wherein P is greater than or equal to 4 and U is greater than or equal to 4 and not equal to P, and LCM is the least common multiple of P and Z (paragraph 42 “Each subassembly 10 is generally wedge shaped and subtends an angle of about .THETA. degrees, with .THETA.=360.degree./2n, wherein "n" is the desired number of pole pairs. Assembly of 2n such subassemblies thus results in the annular structure shown. The radial sides 20a, 20b of each subassembly are directed along a diameter of the final annulus. In the implementation shown, the rotor has 32 poles, or 16 pole pairs, but the techniques provided herein permit the construction of rotors having a wide range of pole count and diameter.” The Examiner notes that a pole pair of n=6-9 maybe used).
With respect to claim 3, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches magnetic poles are formed by permanent magnets embedded in the main part of the rotor (fig. 4 and throughout, wedge-shaped permanent magnet 12), wherein the permanent magnets have magnetization in the circumferential direction of the rotor (paragraph 44 “Magnets 12 have a preferred magnetization direction that is directed substantially perpendicular to their faces, i.e., along either sense of the direction indicated by arrow M in FIG. 3” The Examiner is interpreting the substantially perpendicular as having at least some circumferential component to the magnet).
With respect to claim 4, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches magnetic poles are formed by permanent magnets arranged at an end face of the rotor (fig. 4, magnets 12 are arranged at the end face of the rotor).
With respect to claim 5, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches the main part comprises a pressed part (paragraph 6 “the rotor and shaft may be constructed as an integral assembly, or they may be separate parts secured by fasteners, press fitting, or other known means providing an attachment sufficiently robust to permit torque transfer between the rotor and shaft.”).
With respect to claim 6, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches main part comprises an iron core (paragraph 45 “Support member 19 may be composed of any suitable metallic or non-metallic material. In some implementations, support member 19 may comprise soft magnetic material used to direct magnetic flux. Additional binder of the same type as provided in the prepreg or another type may be added to assure sufficient bonding.” and paragraph 57 “By far, the preponderance of dynamoelectric machines currently produced use as soft magnetic material various grades of electrical or motor steels, which are alloys of Fe with one or more alloying elements, especially including Si, P, C, and Al. Most commonly, Si is a predominant alloying element and the material is non-oriented. The present electric machine may be employed with stators using these conventional soft magnetic materials, but it is preferred that the stator have a magnetic core comprising advanced, low-loss soft material”).
With respect to claim 7, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches the magnetic poles comprise cuboid magnets (fig. 4, magnets 12 are cuboid with 6 faces).
With respect to claim 8, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches the cuboid magnets are arranged in a spoke- like manner in the main part (fig. 4, magnets 12 are arranged in a spoke-like manner) .
With respect to claim 9, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches all of the cuboid magnets are the same size (fig. 4, magnets 12 are the same size).
With respect to claim 10, Seneff teaches an electric axial flux machine, wherein the electric axial flux machine includes a disc-shaped rotor having a main part and having magnetic poles (fig. 4 and 6, structure 50 and magnets 12), which are each arranged spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the main part by an identical pole pitch (fig. 4, magnets 12 are spaced equally apart), and a disc-shaped stator with Z teeth (fig. 6, stator 72 and paragraph 65 “A slot refers to the spacing between alternating teeth of the stator of the present machine. The number of poles is twice the number of pole pairs that each stator tooth encounters during each rotation of the rotor.”), wherein the P magnetic poles are arranged in an alternating manner in the circumferential direction with a first pole width and a second pole width (see figure 4, all magnets 12 have a width).
Seneff does not teach “the first pole width is different than the second pole width.”
Asano teaches the first pole width is different than the second pole width (fig. 1, magnets 12 and 13 define poles which are of different circumferential width).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the motor of Seneff with the differing pole width of Asano in order to mitigate undesired harmonics and/or cogging torque.
With respect to claim 11, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches wherein the first pole width is in a range of 0.9 [360°/p + (369°/LCM) * 0.5] to 1.1 [360°/p + (360°/LCM) *0.5] and the second pole width is in a range of 0.9 [360°/p−(360°/LCM)*0.5] to 1.1[360°/p−(360°/LCM)*0.5], wherein P is greater than or equal to 4 and U is greater than or equal to 4 and not equal to P, and LCM is the least common multiple of P and Z (paragraph 42 “Each subassembly 10 is generally wedge shaped and subtends an angle of about .THETA. degrees, with .THETA.=360.degree./2n, wherein "n" is the desired number of pole pairs. Assembly of 2n such subassemblies thus results in the annular structure shown. The radial sides 20a, 20b of each subassembly are directed along a diameter of the final annulus. In the implementation shown, the rotor has 32 poles, or 16 pole pairs, but the techniques provided herein permit the construction of rotors having a wide range of pole count and diameter.” The Examiner notes that a pole pair of n=6-9 maybe used).
With respect to claim 12, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches the magnetic poles are formed by permanent magnets embedded in the main part of the rotor (fig. 4 and throughout, wedge-shaped permanent magnet 12), wherein the permanent magnets have magnetization in the circumferential direction of the rotor (paragraph 44 “Magnets 12 have a preferred magnetization direction that is directed substantially perpendicular to their faces, i.e., along either sense of the direction indicated by arrow M in FIG. 3” The Examiner is interpreting the substantially perpendicular as having at least some circumferential component to the magnet).
With respect to claim 13, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches the magnetic poles are formed by permanent magnets arranged at an end face of the rotor (fig. 4, magnets 12 are arranged at the end face of the rotor).
With respect to claim 14, Seneff discloses the main part comprises a pressed part (paragraph 6 “the rotor and shaft may be constructed as an integral assembly, or they may be separate parts secured by fasteners, press fitting, or other known means providing an attachment sufficiently robust to permit torque transfer between the rotor and shaft.”).
With respect to claim 15, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches the main part comprises an iron core (paragraph 45 “Support member 19 may be composed of any suitable metallic or non-metallic material. In some implementations, support member 19 may comprise soft magnetic material used to direct magnetic flux. Additional binder of the same type as provided in the prepreg or another type may be added to assure sufficient bonding.” and paragraph 57 “By far, the preponderance of dynamoelectric machines currently produced use as soft magnetic material various grades of electrical or motor steels, which are alloys of Fe with one or more alloying elements, especially including Si, P, C, and Al. Most commonly, Si is a predominant alloying element and the material is non-oriented. The present electric machine may be employed with stators using these conventional soft magnetic materials, but it is preferred that the stator have a magnetic core comprising advanced, low-loss soft material”).
With respect to claim 16, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches the magnetic poles comprise cuboid magnets (fig. 4, magnets 12 are cuboid with 6 faces).
With respect to claim 17, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches the cuboid magnets are arranged in a spoke-like manner in the main part (fig. 4, magnets 12 are arranged in a spoke-like manner).
With respect to claim 18, Seneff in view of Asano teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Seneff further teaches all of the cuboid magnets are the same size (fig. 4, magnets 12 are the same size).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834