DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 24 April 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application, with claims 11-20 being withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 April 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 23 April 2024 was/were filed before mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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(s) 8 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the magnet pivot axis is centered at a radially lower end… relative to the axis of rotation”. The term “a radially lower end” renders the claim indefinite because the radial direction has no inherently upward or downward direction, and thus it is not clear which would be the “lower end”. It is suggested that this limitation be rewritten to indicate that the pivot axis is located at an end of the magnet closer to the rotation axis than the other/free end of the magnet. This interpretation has been applied in the grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Makam et al. (US 2024/0162795 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Makam”.
Regarding claim 1, Makam discloses a method of field weakening [400] in a permanent magnet electric machine [128] having a rotor [136], an axis of rotation, and a stator [132] (fig. 2-3A, 4; ¶ 0019-0020, 0024), the method comprising:
rotating a rotor [136] comprising a plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] arranged annularly about the axis of rotation with each of the plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] being disposed in a respective at least one of a plurality of cavities [208] of the rotor [136] (fig. 3A; ¶ 0019-0020);
PNG
media_image1.png
512
995
media_image1.png
Greyscale
circulating a fluid through a fluid passageway [216] extending through the rotor [136] to each of the plurality of cavities [208] (fig. 3A, 4; ¶ 0020, 0025; “hydraulic fluid flows through hydraulic lines” to the permanent magnet cavities); and
moving the plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] with the fluid from a first position [A] to a second position [B] within the plurality of cavities [208] (fig. 3A; ¶ 0020; the hydraulic fluid moves the magnets between the two positions, changing the angle of the magnets between θ1 and θ2).
Regarding claim 2, Makam discloses the method [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein moving the plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] comprises moving the plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] with the fluid from the first position [A] to the second position [B] within the plurality of cavities [208] when a rotational speed of the rotor [136] is greater than a threshold rotational speed (¶ 0021-0022).
Regarding claim 3, Makam discloses the method [400] of claim 2, as stated above, further comprising moving the plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] with the fluid within the plurality of cavities [208] from the second position [B] to the first position [A] when the rotational speed of the rotor [136] is less than the threshold rotational speed (¶ 0021-0022).
Regarding claim 4, Makam discloses the method [400] of claim 3, as stated above, further comprising moving a second plurality of magnets [140a-2,140b-2] with the fluid within a second plurality of cavities [208] from a third position [A] to a fourth position [B] when the rotational speed of the rotor [136] is greater than the threshold rotational speed (¶ 0021-0022).
Regarding claim 5, Makam discloses the method [400] of claim 4, as stated above, further comprising moving the second plurality of magnets [140a-2,140b-2] with the fluid within the second plurality of cavities [208] from the fourth position [B] to the third position [A] when the rotational speed of the rotor [136] is less than the threshold rotational speed (¶ 0021-0022).
Regarding claim 6, Makam discloses the method [400] of claim 1, as stated above, further comprising controlling a temperature of the plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] with the fluid upon circulating the fluid through the fluid passageway extending through the rotor [136] to the plurality of cavities [208] (¶ 0017; moving the magnets results in “decreased heat generation and increased efficiency, particularly at high-speed operation regions”).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makam in view of Orbay (US 2021/0376705 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Orbay”.
Regarding claim 7, Makam discloses the method [400] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein moving the plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] comprises pivoting each of the plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] radially (fig. 3A; ¶ 0020).
Makam does not disclose pivoting each of the plurality of magnets [140a-1,140b-1] radially about a magnet pivot axis that is parallel with the axis of rotation (i.e., the q-axis sides of the magnets shift position circumferentially, rather than simply pivoting about a single axis).
Orbay discloses a method of field weakening in a permanent magnet motor [610] having a rotor [630] with permanent magnets [640], comprising moving the permanent magnets [640] from a first position to a second position (fig. 4-5a; ¶ 0110-0111), wherein moving the plurality of magnets [640] comprises pivoting each of the plurality of magnets [640] radially about a magnet pivot axis that is parallel with the axis of rotation (fig. 5a; ¶ 0070, 0111; “movement direction R in this case is a pivot direction” in which the magnet moves rotationally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pivot the magnets of Makam about a single magnet pivot axis as taught by Orbay, in order to reduce the space required for movement of the magnets thereby allowing for use in a wider range of applications.
PNG
media_image2.png
342
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Makam, in view of Orbay, discloses the method [400] of claim 7, as stated above, wherein Orbay further discloses that the magnet pivot axis is centered at a radially lower end of each of the plurality of magnets [640] relative to the axis of rotation (fig. 5a; the pivot axis is located at the bottom-right of the magnet, which as shown in figure 4 corresponds to the radially-inner side of the magnet, closer to the rotation axis than the top-left side of the magnet which rotates along direction ‘R’).
Regarding claim 9, Makam, in view of Orbay, discloses the method [400] of claim 7, as stated above, wherein Orbay further discloses that pivoting each of the plurality of magnets [640] comprises pivoting each of the plurality of magnets [640] radially inwardly from the first position to the second position about the magnet pivot axis that is parallel with the axis of rotation (fig. 5a; ¶ 0070, 0111; “movement direction R in this case is a pivot direction” in which the magnet moves rotationally).
Regarding claim 10, Makam, in view of Orbay, discloses the method [400] of claim 7, as stated above, wherein Orbay further discloses that pivoting each of the plurality of magnets comprises pivoting each of the plurality of magnets [640] radially outwardly from the first position to the second position about the magnet pivot axis that is parallel with the axis of rotation (fig. 5a; ¶ 0070, 0111; “movement direction R in this case is a pivot direction” in which the magnet moves rotationally).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Angrick et al. (US 2020/0127510 A1) discloses a method of field weakening for a rotor having permanent magnets that are pivoted about axes.
Takashima et al. (US 2008/0169717 A1) discloses a method of field weakening for a rotor having permanent magnets, where magnetic path switching parts are rotated about axes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye 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 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.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights