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) 5/21/2026 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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 158-159 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nadeau et al (US 20140103767 A1).
With respect to claim 158, Nadeau discloses an electric motor, comprising: a stator, the stator comprising at least one coil (fig. 10, stator 14); and a rotor comprising a magnetic array disposed around an axis of rotation of the rotor (fig. 9, rotor 18), the rotor including at least one phase (paragraph 75 “the configuration of the TFEM 10, an external rotor instead of an internal rotor, the number of phases can change in accordance with the desired power output, torque and rotational speed without departing from the scope of the present invention”), each phase of the at least one phase comprising an annular array of magnets (fig, 18 magnets 94) and concentrators (fig. 18, concentrators 98); wherein the concentrators include a plurality of fingers that are embedded in potting compound (fig. 18, space 194 filled by concentrator 98 and paragraph 91 “Further magnified, a portion of the magnets 94 and concentrators 98 layout is shown in FIG. 18 where a space 194 filled with adhesive 150. FIG. 18 is illustrates a magnified portion of the assembly in FIG. 17.”).
With respect to claim 159, Nadeau discloses n electric motor comprising: a rotor configured to rotate on a rotational axis to generate a mechanical output (fig. 9, rotor 18), the rotor comprising a rotor body (see figure 13, plates 124) and a magnetic array ()fig. 17, magnets 94; a stator spaced radially relative to the rotor and disposed about the rotational axis (fig. 10, stator 14), the stator comprising:
a first stator phase including a first pair of flux rings and a first coil (fig. 9, soft iron core 130 and coil 134, left of page), the first coil disposed axially between the first pair of flux rings; and a second stator phase including a second pair of flux rings and a second coil disposed axially between a second pair of flux rings, the second stator phase spaced axially from the first stator phase by an interphase gap (fig. 9, soft iron core 130 and coil 134, middle of page); and a heat sink extending from an opposite radial side of the first coil from the rotor into the interphase gap and extending towards the first coil from the interphase gap, such that the heat sink is disposed radially between metal of a first flux ring of the first pair of flux rings and the rotor, the heat sink configured to route heat away from the first coil and towards an exterior of the stator (paragraph 86 “For instance, the cylindrical frame 122 of the present embodiment is made of aluminum for the reason expressed above, for its light weight and also because aluminum is a good conductor to carry heat. The cylindrical frame 122 is connected to the drive member 62 with a pair of plates 124 also made of non-magnetic material.”).
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.
Claims 140-147, 149-157 and 160 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeau in view of Erfanfar (US 20070096584 A1).
With respect to claim 140 Nadeau teaches an electric motor, comprising: a stator (fig. 10, stator 14), the stator comprising at least one coil (fig. 9, toroid coil 134); and a rotor spaced radially from the stator by an air gap and configured to rotate on an axis (fig. 9, rotor 18), the rotor comprising: a mandrel (fig. 13, key member 178); and a magnetic array disposed around the axis and supported by the mandrel (fig. 13 and paragraph 91 “One skilled in the art can appreciate the array of magnets 94 and concentrators 98 disposed about the rotation axis 22.”); wherein an appendage extends from a concentrator of the magnetic array (fig. 13, plate 124) into a receiver formed on the mandrel to radially retain the concentrator on the mandrel (fig. 13, fasteners 128 in flange 166).
Nadeau does not teach “wherein a plurality of lamina sheets form the appendage and form at least a portion of a body of the concentrator”
Erfanfar teaches wherein a plurality of lamina sheets form the appendage and form at least a portion of a body of the concentrator (fig. 2, first lamination stack 20).
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 Nadeau with the lamination appendages of Erfanfar in order to better guide the magnetic flux through the rotor attachment sections thereby increasing the desirable magnetic characteristics while reducing magnetic reluctance in the attachment portions.
With respect to claim 141 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches wherein the receiver radially overlaps with the appendage (fig. 13 fasteners 128 and flange 166 overlap).
With respect to claim 142 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the receiver includes an axial projection that radially overlaps with the appendage (fig. 14, flange 166 has an axial component which radially overlaps with the fastener 128).
With respect to claim 143 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the projection is disposed radially between the stator and the appendage (see figures 13-14, flange 166 is disposed between the stator and fasteners 128).
With respect to claim 144 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the projection is disposed radially between the magnetic array and the axis (see figures 13-14, flange 166 is disposed between the magnets 94 and axis 22).
With respect to claim 145 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the projection radially overlaps with a body of the concentrator and the appendage (see figure 13, axial component of flange 166 overlaps radially with plate 124) and the projection is disposed radially between the body of the concentrator and the appendage (see figure 13, axial component of flange 166 overlaps radially with plate 124).
With respect to claim 146 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the appendage extends from the concentrator (see figure 13 fastener 128 extends from plate 124).
With respect to claim 147 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the concentrator comprises a body extending between a first axial end and a second axial end (see figure 13, plates 124), the body having a first radial side oriented towards the stator and a second radial side oriented towards the mandrel (figure 13, plate 124 has a inner and outer radial side, with inner radial side between drive member 62 and fastener and outer being outside the fastener 128); and the appendage extends from the second radial side (see figure 13 plate 124).
With respect to claim 149 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the appendage forms a first appendage extending from the concentrator and the concentrator includes a second appendage that extends from the concentrator (fig. 13, two fasteners 13).
With respect to claim 150 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the first appendage includes a first base end and a first distal end (see figure 13 marked below), the first base end connected to a body of the concentrator, and the first distal end offset axially from the first base end (see figure 13 marked below); and the second appendage includes a second base end and a second distal end (see figure 13 marked below), the second base end connected to the body of the concentrator, and the second distal end offset axially from the second base end (see figure 13 marked below).
PNG
media_image1.png
840
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nadeau Figure 13
With respect to claim 151 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the first distal end is offset in a first axial direction from the first base end (see figure 13 marked above); and the second distal end is offset in the first axial direction from the second base end (see figure 13 marked above).
With respect to claim 152 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the first distal end is offset in a first axial direction from the first base end (see figure 13 marked above distal and base ends are axially offset); and the second distal end is offset in a second axial direction from the second base end, the second axial direction opposite the first axial direction (see figure 13 marked above distal and base ends are axially offset).
With respect to claim 153 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nadeau further teaches the first distal end is spaced from the second distal end by a first axial distance (see figure 13 marked above distal and base ends are axially offset), the first base end is spaced from the second base end by a second axial distance, and the first axial distance differs from the second axial distance (see figure 13 marked above distal and base ends are axially offset).
With respect to claim 154 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but Nadeau does not teach “the appendage includes a neck connected to the concentrator and an appendage body extending from the neck, the appendage body being thicker than the neck.”
Erfanfar teaches the appendage includes a neck connected to the concentrator (fig. 2, area of A3-A2 around bolt 68) and an appendage body extending from the neck, the appendage body being thicker than the neck (fig. 2, first laminations 20).
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 Nadeau with the lamination appendages of Erfanfar in order to better guide the magnetic flux through the rotor attachment sections thereby increasing the desirable magnetic characteristics while reducing magnetic reluctance in the attachment portions.
With respect to claim 155 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but Nadeau does not teach “the concentrator is formed by a first plurality of laminas and the appendage is formed by a second plurality of laminas.”
Erfanfar teaches the concentrator is formed by a first plurality of laminas (fig. 2, second rotor laminations 32) and the appendage is formed by a second plurality of laminas (fig. 2, third lamination stack 40).
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 Nadeau with the lamination appendages of Erfanfar in order to better guide the magnetic flux through the rotor attachment sections thereby increasing the desirable magnetic characteristics while reducing magnetic reluctance in the attachment portions.
With respect to claim 156 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but Nadeau does not teach “the second plurality of laminas are contiguous with the first plurality of laminas.”
Erfanfar teaches the second plurality of laminas are contiguous with the first plurality of laminas (see figure 2, laminations are contiguous with one another).
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 Nadeau with the lamination appendages of Erfanfar in order to better guide the magnetic flux through the rotor attachment sections thereby increasing the desirable magnetic characteristics while reducing magnetic reluctance in the attachment portions.
With respect to claim 157 Nadeau in view of Erfanfar teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but Nadeau does not teach “the first plurality of laminas includes a first lamina count, the second plurality of laminas includes a second lamina count, and the second lamina count is less than the first lamina count.”
Erfanfar teaches the first plurality of laminas includes a first lamina count, the second plurality of laminas includes a second lamina count, and the second lamina count is less than the first lamina count (fig. 2, there are more limitations 32 than laminations 40).
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 Nadeau with the lamination appendages of Erfanfar in order to better guide the magnetic flux through the rotor attachment sections thereby increasing the desirable magnetic characteristics while reducing magnetic reluctance in the attachment portions.
With respect to claim 160, Nadeau teaches an electric motor, comprising: a stator, the stator comprising at least one coil (fig. 9, stator 14); and a rotor spaced radially from the stator by an air gap and configured to rotate on an axis (fig. 9, rotor 18), the rotor comprising: a mandrel (fig. 9, cylindrical frame 122); and a magnetic array disposed around the axis and supported by the mandrel (fig. 9, magnets 94).
Nadeau does not teach “an appendage extends from the mandrel into a receiver formed in a body of the concentrator to radially retain the concentrator on the mandrel.”
Erfanfar teaches an appendage extends from the mandrel into a receiver formed in a body of the concentrator to radially retain the concentrator on the mandrel. (fig. 2, first lamination stack 20).
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 Nadeau with the lamination appendages of Erfanfar in order to better guide the magnetic flux through the rotor attachment sections thereby increasing the desirable magnetic characteristics while reducing magnetic reluctance in the attachment portions.
Claim 148 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeau in view of Erfanfar in view of Long et al (US 20200028389 A1)
With respect to claim 148, Nadeau teaches the second radial side includes a corner cutout extending from the first axial end (fig. 18, space 194 of frame 122, Examiner is interpreting frame 122 and plate as one unit), wherein a radial height of the concentrator varies along the corner cutout (fig. 18, frame 122 has space 194 and ridges 268),
Nadeau nor Erfanfar teaches “wherein the appendage extends from within the corner cutout.”
Long teaches wherein the appendage extends from within the corner cutout (see figure 6B marked below).
PNG
media_image2.png
409
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
t
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 Nadeau with the appendages of Erfanfar with the corner cutouts of Long in order to reduce weight around the joining portions thereby maintaining rotor balance while ensuring rotor integrity during operation.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights