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 .
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 5 & 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 & 6 recites the limitation "wherein the holder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the claims will be treated as though they depend from claim 4.
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.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thisted et al. (EP 2555383) in view of in view of Jore et al. (US 20120217831).
1. Thisted et al. teach:
A magnet device 16 for an electric machine 6, the magnet device comprising:
a carrier 14 (figs 3-5 below) and at least one form-fit element 17;
a number of magnets 10 (fig 5 shows at least two magnets…It is general knowledge that there are more than two magnets in the axial direction in the generator of Thisted et al…MPEP 2112) (fig 5 below); and
a holding part 13 with at least one form-fit element 12 that is in form-fitting engagement with the at least one form-fit element of the carrier (figs 3 & 4 below) and has a holding portion (figs 3 & 4 below) by which at least one of the number of magnets is held on the carrier; but does not teach a carrier with a flat support surface with the magnets arranged along the flat support surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
828
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jore et al. teach that a carrier 2222 with a flat support surface (fig 16 below) with the magnets 2221 arranged along the flat support surface allows for an axial air gap configuration which would offer more power generation that a radial airgap configuration which improves the versatility of Thisted et al. magnets device.
PNG
media_image2.png
824
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Thisted et al. with a carrier with a flat support surface with the magnets arranged along the flat support surface, as taught by Jore et al. so as to improve the versatility of the magnet device.
3. Thisted et al. teach:
The magnet arrangement of claim 1, wherein the holding part is formed in an annular manner (since the rotor is annular and the holding part circumscribes the rotor, MPEP 2112).
4. Thisted et al. teach:
The magnet device of claim 1, further comprising a holder (every other form-fit element on the carrier is a holder…so there is one holder on the opposite side of each magnet, Thist et al. fig 5 above) with a holding portion (the projection coming from 17, Thist et al. fig 5 above) by which the at least one magnet is held on a side, directed away from the holding portion of the holding part (Thist et al. fig 5 above), of the at least one magnet on the carrier (Thist et al. fig 5 above).
5. Thisted et al. teach:
The magnet device of claim 1, wherein the holder is formed on the carrier (Thist et al. fig 5 above).
7. Thist et al. in view of Jore et al. teach:
The magnet device of claim 4, wherein the number of magnets (of Jore et al., fig 30B) are arranged in two rings, between which the holder (annotated fig 30 B of Joe et al.) is arranged.
PNG
media_image3.png
824
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
8. Thisted et al. teach:
The magnet device of claim 1, further comprising a further holding part with at least one form-fit element that is in form-fitting engagement with at least one further form-fit element of the carrier and has a holding portion by means-of which at least one of the number of magnets is held on the carrier, wherein one or more magnets of the number of magnets are arranged between the holding part and the further holding part.
9. Thisted et al. teach:
The magnet device of claim 1, wherein the at least one form-fit element of the carrier and the at least one form-fit element of the holding part jointly form a bayonet connection (Thist et al. fig 5 above).
10. (Currently Amended) The magnet device of claim 1, wherein the number of magnets have in each case an outer surface directed away from the carrier, wherein the outer surfaces of the number of magnets lie in a same plane.
11. Thisted et al. teach:
The magnet device of claim 1, wherein the number of magnets are permanent magnets.
12. Thisted et al. teach:
A rotor 14 for an electric machine 6, the rotor comprising;
a magnet device 16 for the electric machine, the magnet device comprising:
a carrier 14 (figs 3-5 below) and at least one form-fit element 17;
a number of magnets 10 (fig 5 shows at least two magnets…It is general knowledge that there are more than two magnets in the axial direction in the generator of Thisted et al…MPEP 2112) (fig 5 below) around an axis; and a holding part 13 with at least one form-fit element 12 that is in form-fitting engagement with the at least one form-fit element of the carrier (figs 3 & 4 below) and has a holding portion (figs 3 & 4 below) by which at least one of the number of magnets is held on the carrier; but does not teach a carrier with a flat support surface with the magnets arranged along the flat support surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
828
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jore et al. teach that a carrier 2222 with a flat support surface (fig 16 below) with the magnets 2221 arranged along the flat support surface allows for an axial air gap configuration which would offer more power generation that a radial airgap configuration which improves the versatility of Thisted et al. magnets device.
PNG
media_image2.png
824
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Thisted et al. with a carrier with a flat support surface with the magnets arranged along the flat support surface, as taught by Jore et al. so as to improve the versatility of the magnet device.
13. Thisted et al. teach:
An electric machine 6 comprising a rotor 14;
a stator (inherent to a generator, MPEP 2112); and
a magnet device 16 comprising:
a carrier 14 (figs 3-5 below) and at least form-fit element 17;
a number of magnets 10 (fig 5 shows at least two magnets…It is general knowledge that there are more than two magnets in the axial direction in the generator of Thisted et al…MPEP 2112) (fig 5 below) arranged around an axis; and
a holding part 13 with at least one form-fit element 12 that is in form-fitting engagement with the at least one form-fit element of the carrier and has a holding portion (figs 3 & 4 above) by which at least one of the number of magnets is held on the carrier; but does not teach a carrier with a flat support surface with the magnets arranged along the flat support surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
828
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jore et al. teach that a carrier 2222 with a flat support surface (fig 16 below) with the magnets 2221 arranged along the flat support surface allows for an axial air gap configuration which would offer more power generation that a radial airgap configuration which improves the versatility of Thisted et al. magnets device.
PNG
media_image2.png
824
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Thisted et al. with a carrier with a flat support surface with the magnets arranged along the flat support surface, as taught by Jore et al. so as to improve the versatility of the magnet device.
14. Thisted et al. teach:
The electric machine of claim 13, wherein the magnet device forms a part of the rotor.
15. Thisted et al. teach:
A method for producing a magnet device 16, the method comprising:
providing a carrier 14 (figs 3-5 above) and at least one form-fit element 17; and
arranging a number of magnets 10 (fig 5 shows at least two magnets…It is general knowledge that there are more than two magnets in the axial direction in the generator of Thisted et al…MPEP 2112) (fig 5 below) around an axis; and
form-fitting connection of at least one form-fit element 12 of a holding part 13 to the at least one form-fit element of the carrier, wherein at least one of the number of magnets is held by a holding portion (figs 3 & 4 above) of the holding part on the carrier; but does not teach a carrier with a flat support surface with the magnets arranged along the flat support surface.
Jore et al. teach that a carrier 2222 with a flat support surface (fig 16 below) with the magnets 2221 arranged along the flat support surface allows for an axial air gap configuration which would offer more power generation that a radial airgap configuration which improves the versatility of Thisted et al. magnets device.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Thisted et al. with a carrier with a flat support surface with the magnets arranged along the flat support surface, as taught by Jore et al. so as to improve the versatility of the magnet device..
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thisted et al. in view of Jore et al. and in further view of Vianello (WO 2021044290) and Li et al. (CN 111514393).
2. Thisted et al. in view of Jore et al. have been discussed above, re claim 1; but do not teach that the number of magnets have a bevel, and the holding portion of the holding part bears flat against the bevel of the at least one magnet.
Vianello teaches that the number of magnets 50 have a bevel (fig 2), and the holding portion of the holding part 60 bears flat against the bevel of the at least one magnet. Li et al. teaches that beveling a magnet reduces harmonics which improves efficiency in the motor operations. This would increase the effective lifespan of the rotor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Thisted et al. so that the number of magnets have a bevel, and the holding portion of the holding part bears flat against the bevel of the at least one magnet, as taught by Vianello and Li et al. so as to increase the effective lifespan of the rotor.
Claim(s) 6 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thisted et al. in view of Jore et al. and in further view of Fehn (US 20140239749).
6. Thisted et al. in view of Jore et al. have been discussed above, re claim 1; but do not teach that the holder is formed on a support body that has a support portion that is arranged between the at least one of magnet and the carrier.
Fehn teach that the holder 7 is formed on a support body 3 that has a support portion (underneath that magnet 5, Fehn fig 1) that is arranged between the at least one of magnet 5 and the carrier 13 to reduce the weight of the rotor (since the carrier has plastic integrated in it). This would increase the lifespan of the rotor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Thisted et al. so that the holder is formed on a support body that has a support portion that is arranged between the at least one of magnet and the carrier, as taught by Fehn so as to increase the lifespan of the rotor.
16. Thisted et al. in view of Jore et al. teach:
The method of claim 15, further comprising, prior to
– arranging of the number of magnets (of Thisted et al.) along the support flat surface (of Jore et al.) assembling a cassette/quadrant 2000/2220 (of Jore et al. figs 16 & 25), the assembling of the cassette comprising the number of magnets 2221 (Jore et al. fig 15), the holding part (of Thisted et al.); but does not teach a further holding part on a support body.
Fehn teach that a further holding part 7/9 is formed on a support body 3 hold the magnets reliably and reduces the weight of the rotor (since the carrier has plastic integrated in it). This would increase the lifespan of the rotor and improve performance of the rotor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Thisted et al. with a further holding part on a support body, as taught by Fehn so as to increase the lifespan and improve performance of the rotor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834