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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims, specification, and abstract dated 3/23/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 were amended and new claim 15 was added.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 15 there is an extraneous [0057].
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the mains" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0036401 to Takano et al. (hereinafter Takano ‘401; cited by Applicant on 3/23/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Takano ‘401 teaches a rotor (FIG. 1, 30) for a drive motor (FIG. 1, 1), comprising:
a rotor core (FIG. 2, 31) having an outer circumference;
a surface magnet (FIG. 2, 32) arranged on the outer circumference of the rotor core, wherein the surface magnet also has an outer circumference; and
a reinforcing sleeve (FIG. 2, 33) arranged on the outer circumference of the surface magnet, wherein the reinforcing sleeve is configured to fix the surface magnet to the rotor core (Paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 2, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing sleeve is connected to the surface magnet by way of a material connection (Paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing sleeve is made of plastic (Paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein:
the surface magnet is formed by at least two circular segment-shaped magnetic segments (FGI. 2, 32), and the reinforcing sleeve comprises a cylindrical base body (FIG. 2, 33).
Regarding claim 12, Takano ‘401 teaches a drive motor (FIG. 1, 1) having a stator (FIG. 1, 20) and a rotor (FIG. 1, 30), wherein the rotor comprises a rotor core (FIG. 2, 31) on the outer circumference of which is arranged a surface magnet (FIG. 2, 32) and wherein a reinforcing sleeve (FIG. 2, 33) for fixing the surface magnet to the rotor core (Paragraph [0054]) is arranged on an outer circumference of the surface magnet.
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano ‘401 over German Patent No. 10 2011 105 867 to Borsai et al. (hereinafter Borsai; provided by Applicant on 3/23/2024).
Regarding claim 4, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing sleeve comprises a cylindrical base body (FIG. 2, 33).
Takano ‘401 does not teach the surface magnet being implemented as a ring magnet.
However, Borsai teaches a rotor with a surface ring magnet (FIG. 2, 10).
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 the rotor of Takano ‘401 with the ring magnet of Borsai to achieve a higher flux density.
Regarding claim 10, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
Takano ‘401 does not teach the rotor being formed as a laminated core.
However, Borsai teaches a rotor being formed as a laminated core (FIG. 6, 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 the rotor of Takano ‘401 with the laminated core of Borsai as they improve magnetic performance by decreasing eddy current losses.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano ‘401 over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0204017 to Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi; cited by Applicant on 3/23/2024) and German Patent No. 10 2018 004 725 to Takano et al. (hereinafter Takano ‘725).
Regarding claim 6, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
Takano ‘401 does not teach the surface magnet being formed by at least two annular magnetic segments, the reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two cylindrical sleeve segments, and the at least two annular magnetic segments and the at least two cylindrical sleeve segments are arranged adjacent to one another along a longitudinal extension of the rotor.
However, Choi teaches a surface magnet being formed by at least two annular magnetic segments (FIG. 6, 110), the at least two annular magnetic segments being arranged adjacent to one another along a longitudinal extension of the rotor.
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 the rotor of Takano ‘401 with the annular magnetic segments of Choi to provide an easier to install and replace modular component for the rotor.
Takano ’401 in view of Choi does not teach the reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two cylindrical sleeve segments, the at least two cylindrical sleeve segments being arranged adjacent to one another along a longitudinal extension of the rotor.
However, Takano ‘725 teaches a reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two cylindrical sleeve segments (FIG. 2A, 33), the at least two cylindrical sleeve segments being arranged adjacent to one another along a longitudinal extension of the rotor.
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 the rotor of Takano ‘401 in view of Choi with the cylindrical sleeve segments of Takano ‘725 to provide an easier to install and replace modular component for the rotor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano ‘401 in view of WIPO Publication No. 2021/183170 to Li et al. (hereinafter Li; provided by Applicant on 3/23/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the surface magnet is formed by at least two circular segment-shaped magnetic segments (FIG. 2, 32), the at least two circular segment-shaped magnetic segments being adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction.
Takano ‘401 does not teach the reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments, and the at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments being arranged adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction.
However, Li teaches a reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments (FIG. 3; 40, 42, 44, 46), the at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments being arranged adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction.
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 the rotor of Takano ‘401 with the circular segment-shaped sleeve segments of Li to provide an easier to install and replace modular component for the rotor.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano ‘401 in view of Takano ‘725.
Regarding claim 8, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the surface magnet is formed by at least two circular segment-shaped magnetic segments (FIG. 2, 32), the at least two circular segment-shaped magnetic segments being adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction.
Takano ‘401 does not teach the reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two cylindrical sleeve segments, and the at least two cylindrical sleeve segments being arranged adjacent to one another along a longitudinal extension of the rotor.
However, Takano ‘725 teaches a reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two cylindrical sleeve segments (FIG. 2A, 33), the at least two cylindrical sleeve segments being arranged adjacent to one another along a longitudinal extension of the rotor.
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 the rotor of Takano ‘401 with the cylindrical sleeve segments of Takano ‘725 to provide an easier to install and replace modular component for the rotor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano ‘401 in view of Choi and Li.
Regarding claim 9, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
Takano ‘401 does not teach the surface magnet being formed by at least two annular magnetic segments, the reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments, the at least two annular magnetic segments being arranged adjacent to one another along a longitudinal extension of the rotor, and the at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments being arranged adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction.
However, Choi teaches a surface magnet being formed by at least two annular magnetic segments (FIG. 6, 110), the at least two annular magnetic segments being arranged adjacent to one another along a longitudinal extension of the rotor.
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 the rotor of Takano ‘401 with the annular magnetic segments of Choi to provide an easier to install and replace modular component for the rotor.
Takano ‘401 in view of Choi does not teach the reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments, and the at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments being arranged adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction.
However, Li teaches a reinforcing sleeve being formed by at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments (FIG. 3; 40, 42, 44, 46), the at least two circular segment-shaped sleeve segments being arranged adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction.
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 the rotor of Takano ‘401 in view of Choi with the circular segment-shaped sleeve segments of Li to provide an easier to install and replace modular component for the rotor.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano ‘401.
Regarding claim 11, Takano ‘401 teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
Takano ‘401 does not teach the reinforcing sleeve having a wall thickness of at most 20% of a wall thickness of the surface magnet.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor of Takano ‘401 by making the reinforcing sleeve have a wall thickness of at most 20% of a wall thickness of the surface magnet as a matter of design choice and reduce the overall radial footprint of the rotor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano ‘401 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0393534 to Lu et al. (hereinafter Lu).
Regarding claim 13, Takano ‘401 teaches a drive motor (FIG. 1, 1) comprising a stator (FIG. 1, 20) and a rotor (FIG. 1, 30), wherein the rotor comprises a rotor core (FIG. 2, 31) on the outer circumference of which a surface magnet (FIG. 2, 32) is arranged, and wherein a reinforcing sleeve (FIG. 2, 33) is arranged on an outer circumference of the surface magnet for fixing the surface magnet to the rotor core (Paragraph [0054]).
Takano ‘401 does not teach the drive motor being part of an electrical consumer.
However, Lu teaches an electrical consumer (FIG. 1, 10) comprising a drive motor (FIG. 2A, 100) with a rotor sleeve.
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 the drive motor of Takano ‘401 by incorporating it into the electrical consumer of Lu for the electrical consumer of Lu to benefit from the features of the drive motor of Takano ‘401.
Regarding claim 14, Takano ‘401 in view of Lu teaches the electrical consumer according to claim 13, wherein Lu further teaches a battery pack (FIG. 1, 17) for providing power independently of mains power is provided (Paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 15, Takano ‘401 in view of Lu teaches the electrical consumer according to claim 13, wherein the electrical consumer is a hand-held power tool (FIG. 1, 10; Paragraph [0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834