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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10 and 20) in the reply filed on 03/19/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 11-19 drawn to a method of cooling an axial flux electric motor of the same construction and therefore cannot be used to cool another material different electric motor. Applicant’s argument was found persuasive and therefore the previous restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recited:
“…obtaining, via an electronic controller, data indicative of an operating point of the axial flux electric motor …
…identifying, via the electronic controller, the operating point on an operation map of the axial flux electric motor; comparing, via the electronic controller, the obtained temperature to a predicted temperature corresponding to the operating point”
However, the original disclosure does not describe how this operation map is generated, which parameters define its axes/boundaries. Also, the original disclosure does not describe how the operating points are mapped to the predicted temperature and how the map is structure. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art.
Claims 12-19 are rejected for their dependency on claim 11.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjoji (US 2016/0344249 A1) in view of Murakami (US 2006/0284507 A1).
RE claim 1, Enjoji teaches a cooled axial flux electric motor 2 (Fig.1 and ¶ 25) comprising: a rotationally-fixed stator 6 defining a rotational axis (around shaft 10) and having a plurality of conductive stator magnetic poles 42 (formed by coil 42) arranged radially about the rotational axis (Fig.3); a rotor 8 spaced axially from one side from the stator 6 and rotatably mounted coaxially with the rotational axis, defined by an inside diameter and an outside diameter (Fig.1), and having a rotor first exterior surface facing the stator 6 and a rotor second exterior surface arranged opposite the rotor first exterior surface (Fig.1), wherein the rotor 8 includes: a rotor core 48 defining the rotor second exterior surface and a plurality of permanent magnets 50 (PMs) arranged on the rotor core 48 symmetrically around the rotational axis and facing the stator 6; and a plurality of channels 56 extending radially outwardly across the rotor 8 and configured to direct a coolant (airflow, see ¶ 32 and Fig.1), via centrifugal force (see ¶ 32) , from the inside diameter toward the outside diameter as the rotor rotates about the rotational axis (¶ 32 and Fig.1).
Enjoji does not teach the rotor core is made of ferromagnetic and the permanent magnet includes alternating south and north pole.
Murakami teaches the rotor core is made of ferromagnetic and the permanent magnet 31 includes alternating south and north pole (see Fig.4A). With this structure, the magnetic forces can be efficiently used, and besides the reluctance torque, produced by the rotor cores, can be enhanced (¶ 23). Furthermore, with this alternating pole structure, eddy currents can be reduced, and besides a reluctance torque can be enhanced (¶ 21).
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 Enjoji by having the rotor core to be made of ferromagnetic and the permanent magnet includes alternating south and north pole, as taught by Murakami, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Enjoji in view of Murakami has been discussed above. Enjoji further teaches at least one of the plurality of channels 56 extends on the rotor first exterior surface across each of the PMs 50 (Figs.1, 7).
RE claim 4/1, Enjoji in view of Murakami has been discussed above. Enjoji further teaches at least one of the plurality of channels 58 extends on the rotor second exterior surface (Figs.1, 8).
RE claim 5/1, Enjoji in view of Murakami has been discussed above. Enjoji further teaches the plurality of channels 56, 58 defines a radially disposed channel pattern (Figs.7, 8), and wherein the channel pattern is one of a straight (see Figs.7, 8), inclined, and spiral relative to the rotational axis (Fig.10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjoji in view of Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2010/0289350 A1).
RE claim 6/1, Enjoji in view of Murakami has been discussed above. Enjoji does not teach a plurality of projections arranged on the outside diameter between the first and second rotor exterior surfaces.
Watanabe teaches a plurality of projections 13 arranged on the outside diameter between the first and second rotor exterior surfaces (Figs.6, 7), so that the effect of cooling can be enhanced (¶ 37).
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 Enjoji in view of Murakami by having a plurality of projections arranged on the outside diameter between the first and second rotor exterior surfaces, as taught by Watanabe, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjoji in view of Murakami and Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wetzel et al. (US 2015/0263590 A1).
RE claim 7/6, as discussed above, Watanabe teaches each of the projections has a fan blade shape (Fig.6) configured to shed the coolant from the outside diameter of the rotor 5 (Fig.6).
Enjoji in view of Murakami and Watanabe does not teach the fan blade has curved shape.
Wetzel teaches the fan blade has curved shape (¶ 22). As a result of lower vorticity the cooling effect can be optimized (¶ 22).
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 Enjoji in view of Murakami by having the fan blade has curved shape, as taught by Wetzel, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjoji in view of Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao (US 2021/0288554 A1).
RE claim 8/1, Enjoji in view of Murakami has been discussed above. Enjoji further teaches a rotor shaft 10 (Fig.1) fixed to the rotor 8 and mounted rotationally inside the stator 6 coaxially with the rotational axis (Fig.1).
Enjoji does not teach the rotor shaft defines a fluid passage configured to supply the coolant to the plurality of channels.
Yao teaches the rotor shaft 14 defines a fluid passage 78 configured to supply the coolant to the plurality of channels (Fig.1), doing so allows coolant to be supply to the rotor during operation (¶ 41-43).
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 Enjoji in view of Murakami by having the rotor shaft defines a fluid passage configured to supply the coolant to the plurality of channels, as taught by Yao, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 9/8, Enjoji in view of Murakami has been discussed above. Enjoji does not teach a housing defining a fluid sump configured to collect the coolant after the coolant has passed through the plurality of channels and return the coolant to the fluid sump via gravity.
Yao teaches a housing 12 defining a fluid sump 90 configured to collect the coolant after the coolant has passed through the plurality of channels and return the coolant to the fluid sump via gravity (¶ 44), doing so provided an oil cooling system for the electrical machine which can improve performance of the axial flux motor at high temperature (¶ 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 Enjoji in view of Murakami by having a housing defining a fluid sump configured to collect the coolant after the coolant has passed through the plurality of channels and return the coolant to the fluid sump via gravity, as taught by Yao, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 10/9, as discussed above, Yao teaches each of the fluid sump 90 and the fluid passage 78 in the rotor shaft 14 is in fluid communication with a fluid pump 88 configured to supply the coolant from the fluid sump 90 to the fluid passage 78 in the rotor shaft 14 (Fig.1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enjoji (US 2016/0344249 A1) in view of Murakami (US 2006/0284507 A1) and Yao (US 2021/0288554 A1).
RE claim 20, Enjoji teaches a cooled axial flux electric motor 2 (Fig.1 and ¶ 25) comprising: a rotationally-fixed stator 6 defining a rotational axis and having a plurality of conductive stator magnetic poles 42 arranged radially about the rotational axis (Fig.3); a rotor 8 spaced axially from one side of the stator 6 and rotatably mounted coaxially with the rotational axis (Fig.3), defined by an inside diameter and an outside diameter, and having a rotor first exterior surface facing the stator 6 and a rotor second exterior surface arranged opposite the rotor first exterior surface (Fig.1), wherein the rotor 8 includes: a rotor core 48 defining the rotor second exterior surface and a plurality of permanent magnets 50 (PMs) arranged on the rotor core 48 symmetrically around the rotational axis and facing the stator 6; and a plurality of channels 56, 58 extending radially outwardly across the rotor 8 and configured to direct a coolant, via centrifugal force, from the inside diameter toward the outside diameter as the rotor rotates about the rotational axis (see Fig.1 and ¶ 32); a rotor shaft 10 fixed to the rotor 8 and mounted rotationally inside the stator 6 coaxially with the rotational axis.
Enjoji does not teach:
the rotor core is made of ferromagnetic and the permanent magnet includes alternating south and north pole.
wherein the rotor shaft defines a fluid passage configured to supply the coolant to the plurality of channels; and a housing defining a fluid sump configured to collect the coolant after the coolant has passed through the plurality of channels and return the coolant to the fluid sump via gravity.
RE (i) above, Murakami teaches the rotor core is made of ferromagnetic and the permanent magnet 31 includes alternating south and north pole (see Fig.4A). With this structure, the magnetic forces can be efficiently used, and besides the reluctance torque, produced by the rotor cores, can be enhanced (¶ 23). Furthermore, with this alternating pole structure, eddy currents can be reduced, and besides a reluctance torque can be enhanced (¶ 21).
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 Enjoji by having the rotor core to be made of ferromagnetic and the permanent magnet includes alternating south and north pole, as taught by Murakami, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Yao teaches the rotor shaft 14 defines a fluid passage 78 configured to supply the coolant to the plurality of channels (Fig.1), a housing 12 defining a fluid sump 90 configured to collect the coolant after the coolant has passed through the plurality of channels and return the coolant to the fluid sump via gravity (¶ 44), doing so provided an oil cooling system for the electrical machine which can improve performance of the axial flux motor at high temperature (¶ 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 Enjoji in view of Murakami by having the rotor shaft defines a fluid passage configured to supply the coolant to the plurality of channels; and a housing defining a fluid sump configured to collect the coolant after the coolant has passed through the plurality of channels and return the coolant to the fluid sump via gravity, as taught by Yao, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
RE claim 3/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the ferromagnetic rotor core includes a plurality of core saliencies extending to the rotor first exterior surface; each pair of alternating south and north pole PMs of the rotor includes one of the core saliencies arranged therebetween; and at least one of the plurality of channels extends on the rotor first exterior surface between one of the PMs and one of the saliencies.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights