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 . Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “ROTOR WITH PERMANENT MAGNETS AND PERMANENT MAGNET SLOTS HAVING U-SHAPE SLOTS WITH CURVED ENDS AND OBTUSE ANLGES”
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US PG PUB 20210044167 hereinafter “Huang”) in view of Gangi et al. (US PG Pub 20200259377 hereinafter “Gangi”).
Re-claim 8, Huang discloses a rotor (10) for a rotating electrical machine, the rotor comprising a rotor package (10,11) mounted on a shaft (shaft in shaft hole), see claim 1), the rotor package comprising a plurality of sets of slots (11,12) into which permanent magnets (20,30) can be inserted (fig.10, or fig.2), wherein each set of slots (12) comprises: a first radially outermost slot (112) having a substantially U-shape with a central straight segment (annotated fig.10 or fig.1 showing details) and two opposing lateral straight segments (see fig.10 from Huang) showing 123 having straight segments), wherein each of the opposing straight lateral segments makes a first obtuse angle (a1, fig.10) with the central segment, and second and third radially innermost slots (123, 122, see fig.10), each of the second and third slots (annotated fig.10) comprising a first and a second straight segments that make a second obtuse angle (b1, see fig.10) between them.
Huang fails to explicitly teach at least one of the lateral segments has a straight end with curved corners; at least one of the straight lateral segments has a straight end with curved corners.
However, Gangi teaches teach at least one of the lateral segments has a straight end with curved corners (see fig.7, item 26); at least one of the straight lateral segments has a straight end with curved corners (see fig.7, item 28, curved corners).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the segments end of Huang where at least one of the lateral segments has a straight end with curved corners; at least one of the straight lateral segments has a straight end with curved corners as shown by Gangi to provide simple tube shape of a flux barrier providing manufacturing cost saving and better flux barrier, less magnetic flux corner shape paths, minimize leakage flux and torque ripple improving machine output (Gangi, P[0039]).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
525
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
518
539
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Gangi, and in further view of Cheong et al. (US Patent 7459821 hereinafter “Cheong”).
Re-claim 9, Huang as modified discloses the rotor (fig.1) according to claim 8.
Huang fails to explicitly teach wherein the rotor package comprises four sets of slots equally spaced apart, wherein the first obtuse angle is given by the formula 90 + (180 / n), where n is the number of poles of the rotating electrical machine; and the second obtuse angle is given by the formula 90 + (180/ n), where n is the number of poles of the rotating electrical machine.
However, Cheong teaches the rotor package (fig.10b) comprises four sets of slots equally spaced apart (slots 30, see fig.10b), wherein the first obtuse angle (annotated ifg.10b) is given by the formula 90 + (180 / n) (n is 4, 4 angles, therefore they are the same structure as Cheong), where n is the number of poles of the rotating electrical machine; and the second obtuse angle (see annotated ig.10b) is given by the formula 90 + (180/ n) (n is 4 as in fig.10b) , where n is the number of poles of the rotating electrical machine (n is 4, 4 angles, therefore they are the same structure as Cheong).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify number of poles of Huang wherein the rotor package comprises four sets of slots equally spaced apart, wherein the first obtuse angle is given by the formula 90 + (180 / n), where n is the number of poles of the rotating electrical machine; and the second obtuse angle is given by the formula 90 + (180/ n), where n is the number of poles of the rotating electrical machine as shown by Cheong which structure would give a 4 pole rotor structure, using less magnets therefore minimize production (Cheong, Abstract).
PNG
media_image4.png
623
589
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-7,and 10 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Re-claim 1 recites “inter alia” “ A rotor(1) for a rotating electrical machine, the rotor comprising a rotor package (2) mounted on a shaft, the rotor package (2) comprising a plurality of sets of slots (3) into which permanent magnets (3) can be inserted ( 4), wherein each set of slots (3) comprises: a first radially outermost slot (5) having a substantially U-shape with a central straight segment (5a) and two opposing lateral straight segments (5b, 5c), wherein each of the opposing straight lateral segments makes a first obtuse angle (A1) with the central segment (5a) and comprises an end at which opposing curved grooves are formed (5d, 5e), and wherein each of the opposing curved grooves (5d, 5e) of each opposing straight lateral segment (5b, 5c) forms a radius R1 centered at a point collinear with a straight edge (5f)of such opposing mirrored lateral segment (5b , 5c); and second and third radially innermost slots (6, 7), each of the second and third slots (6,7) comprising a first and a second straight segments (6a, 6b; 7a, 7b) that make a second obtuse angle (B1) with each other, wherein the second straight segment (6b, 7b) comprises an end at which opposing curved grooves (6d, 6e) are formed and wherein each of the opposing curved grooves (6d, 6e) forms a radius R2 centered at a point collinear with a straight edge (6f) of such a second straight segment (6b, 7b).”
PNG
media_image5.png
551
752
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
668
707
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art of record, show structures with similar U shaped magnet holes and segments, but they fail to teach the details and structure as recited in claim 1, specially the mirroring details, the segment sections being straight and the various radius and curved structures that make the angles obtuse with each other, and also provides mirrored lateral segments with specific radiuses of curvature of the holes with specific center at point collinear with straight edges (5f, 6f) which is specific and unique and is found allowable.
The prior art of record, ip.com search, ai search, global dossier search fail to teach alone or in combination the details of claim 1, nor does it make sense to try to combine references to try to make the combined limitation of claim 1 which are found to be unique.
Claims 2-7 and 10 are allowed based on dependency from claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834