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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: “AXIAL FLUX MACHINE WITH STATOR AND ANNULAR STRUCTRUAL ELEMENT AS A COOLIGN ELEMENT EXTENDING INTO STATOR GROOVE”
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 2-4,6,7,9,10,13 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation [the stator can be positioned via the annular structural element], and the claim also recites [ in particular in the motor housing] which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, clarification is needed, deleting in particular would clarify issue. SAME REJECTION APPLIES TO ALL CLAIMS BELOW.
Claim 4, has similar issue as recited above, with the following statement, : “which the position of the rotational rotor axis is defined and/or axial forces. “clarified,
Claim 6, has similar issue as recited above, with the following statement, : “the annular structural element has a thermal conductivity of at least 80 W/mK (broad limitation), preferably at least 220 W/mK. (narrow limitation)” The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, clarification is needed, deleting in particular would clarify issue.,
Claim 7, has similar issue as recited above, with the following statement, : “the annular structural element at least partially comprises aluminum, steel, copper, magnesium, brass, zinc, carbon and/or metal oxides, in particular ceramics (narrow limitation)” The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, clarification is needed, deleting in particular would clarify issue.
Claim 9, has similar issue as recited above, with the following statement, : “wherein at one or more points of the annular enclosure of at least one stator tooth, in particular of each stator tooth, this enclosure is perforated by a recess (narrow limitation), in particular a slot-shaped recess (narrow limitation)” The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, clarification is needed, deleting in particular would clarify issue.
Claim 10, has similar issue as recited above, with the following statement, : “by a sheet metal strip (component 44) which is guided (guided around 211), preferably in a meandering manner,
(narrow limitation)” The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, clarification is needed, deleting in particular would clarify issue.
Claim 13, has similar issue as recited above, with the following statement, : “at least one projection has a cooling fin, in particular a tab-shaped cooling fin (narrow limitation), preferably produced by stamping or molding from the annular structural element (narrow limitation)” The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, clarification is needed, deleting in particular would clarify issue.
Claim 3 is rejected based on dependency from claim 2.
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 1-3,5-10,12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US PG PUB 218323663 hereinafter “Ogawa”) in view of Asano et al. (US PG pub 20110316381 hereinafter “Asano”).
Re-claim 1, Ogawa discloses an axial flux machine (Title) having a motor housing (3) and at least two active parts (1,2), of which at least one active part (1) is configured as a rotor (1) which has a number of permanent magnets (12) and is mounted rotatably about a rotational rotor axis (see fig.2, ), and at least one stator (2) is provided as a second active part (2), wherein the stator has a stator yoke (21), a number of stator teeth (212) and coils (conductor wire around tooth 212, P[42]) arranged around the stator teeth (212), wherein an annular structural element (4), which annular structural element (4) is arranged on the stator (2) and is connected in a rotation-proof manner (holding onto stator) to the stator yoke (21) and, on the one hand, extends as a cooling element at least partially into at least one of the stator grooves below at least one of the coils and projects at least partially beyond the stator yoke at the outer and/or inner diameter of the stator and, on the other hand, is configured as a fastening element (holding 21, see fig.1, 44 holds 211) at its outer and/or inner edge (see fig.11, at 214b) and the stator (2) is fastened in the motor housing (3) via the annular structural element (4 holds 2 onto 3) is provided for cooling the stator (P[0048]), so that the annular structural element (4) introduces load forces and load torques occurring in the axial flux machine from the stator (2) into the motor housing (3) [fixing portion 4, holds the stator at 214b, and the bolt 45 holds the component 44 to 3 to 214, thereore forces and torques are introduced and held together).
Ogawa fails to explicitly teach that the annular structural element (4) which is at least partially provided with electrical insulation.
However, Asano teaches that the annular structural element (20) which is at least partially provided with electrical insulation (20 has resin, insulated, see P[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to make the annular structural element of Ogawa which is at least partially provided with electrical insulation as suggested by Asano to curb electrical eddy current and minimize its effect (Asano, P[0059,0062]).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
543
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
559
748
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
591
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according to claim 1, wherein the annular structural element (4) is configured as a positioning element at its outer and/or inner edge (see annotated fig.10), so that the stator (2) can be positioned via the annular structural element (4), in particular in the motor housing (3) and/or in an injection molding tool.
Re-claim 3, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according to claim 2,wherein the annular structural element (4) has suitable fastening elements (45) via which the stator (2) can be fastened in and/or on the motor housing (3) via the annular structural element (4, 45 used to screw in 4 to hold it in 3 and connect to 2).
Re-claim 5, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according to claim 1,wherein the stator yoke (211) and the stator teeth (212) are configured as a one-piece component (component 2 the stator).
Re-claim 6, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according to claim 1,wherein the annular structural element (4) has a thermal conductivity (conducts cooling and cools stator).
Ogawa fails to explicitly teach thermal conductivity of at least 80 W/mK, preferably at least 220 W/mK.
However, Asano teaches having a structure thermal conductivity of at least 80 W/mK, preferably at least 220 W/mK (made of insulated fine iron powder, iron powder has thermal conductivlity of at least 79.5 see Intrinsic Evidence at: Thermal Conductivity https://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/thrcn.html).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to make the annular structural element of Ogawa thermal conductivity of at least 80 W/mK, preferably at least 220 W/mK as suggested by Asano to provide withstand heat and curb electrical eddy current and minimize its effect (Asano, P[0059,0062]).
Re-claim 7, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according to claim 1,
Ogawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the annular structural element at least partially comprises aluminum, steel, copper, magnesium, brass, zinc, carbon and/or metal oxides, in particular ceramics.
However, Asano teaches wherein the annular structural element at least partially comprises aluminum, steel, copper, magnesium, brass, zinc, carbon and/or metal oxides (stainless steel, or iron, or magnetic steel, see P[0006-0009],
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to make the annular structural element of Ogawa wherein the annular structural element at least partially comprises aluminum, steel, copper, magnesium, brass, zinc, carbon and/or metal oxides, in particular ceramics as suggested by Asano to provide withstand heat and curb electrical eddy current and minimize its effect (Asano, P[0059,0062]).
Re-claim 8, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according to claim 1,wherein the annular structural element (4) has recesses and/or openings (411) which are suitable for the passage of electrical conductors, coolants or fastenings (at 411, 441 where 45 goes thru) and/or for the reduction of eddy-current losses.
Re-claim 9, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according to claim 1, wherein the annular structural element (4) is configured in such a way that the annular structural element encloses (it is around the teeth from outside in circumferential direction, end of 4 is around all of teeth circumferentially at least) the individual stator teeth (212) in an annular manner, wherein at one or more points (at least points where 4 is located and where 42b is extending which enclose teeth on at least one side, and, round shape of 44 enclose teeth from circumferential direction) of the annular enclosure of at least one stator tooth, in particular of each stator tooth, this enclosure is perforated by a recess (recess at 42b location), in particular a slot-shaped recess (recess at 42b, 214b).
Re-claim 10, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according claim 1,wherein the annular structural element (4) is formed at least partially by a sheet metal strip (component 44) which is guided (guided around 211), preferably in a meandering manner, at least partially around the stator teeth (around 212, with all structure of 44, and 42, where sections of 4 extend in and out of 211).
Re-claim 12, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according to claim 1,wherein the annular structural element (4) has at least one projection (42a) in the radial and/or axial direction, by means of which the cooling capacity (bigger size means bigger cooling capacity, bigger surface)P[0048] of the annular structural element (4) can be increased.
Re-claim 13, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according to claim 12, wherein the at least one projection (annotated fig.14, end of 42b) has a cooling fin, in particular a tab-shaped cooling fin, preferably produced by stamping or molding from the annular structural element [product by process limitation, Examiner points out this limitation is considered a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.], which cooling fin (annotated fig.14) is arranged adjacent to at least one of the coils (coils around 212, from conductor material).
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Asano, and in futher view of Yokoi (JP 2006042535a hereinafter Yokoi).
Re-claim 11, Ogawa as modified discloses the axial flux machine according claim 1.
Ogawa is silent to teaches wherein the annular structural element has a heat transfer device, in particular a closed cavity with a medium with phase transition and/or a heat pipe, inserted in a positive locking manner, with an integrated working medium.
However, Yokoi teaches the annular structural element has a heat transfer device (30), in particular a closed cavity (inside 30) with a medium (coolant in side cooling pipe) with phase transition and/or a heat pipe (heat pipe 30, 32), inserted in a positive locking manner (in with tight structure in fig.5), with an integrated working medium (38).
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 annular structure heat transfer structure of Ogawa wherein the annular structural element has a heat transfer device, in particular a closed cavity with a medium with phase transition and/or a heat pipe, inserted in a positive locking manner, with an integrated working medium as suggested by Yokoi to provide cooling and make device operate in optimum temperature.
PNG
media_image5.png
571
409
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
351
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 as best understood, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, 2,3 and 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re-claim 4 recites, “inter alia”, combined with claims 1-3: Claim 1 (Original): An axial flux machine having a motor housing and at least two active parts, of which at least one active part is configured as a rotor which has a number of permanent magnets and is mounted rotatably about a rotational rotor axis, and at least one stator is provided as a second active part, wherein the stator has a stator yoke, a number of stator teeth and coils arranged around the stator teeth, wherein an annular structural element which is at least partially provided with electrical insulation is provided for cooling the stator, which annular structural element is arranged on the stator and is connected in a rotation-proof manner to the stator yoke and, on the one hand, extends as a cooling element at least partially into at least one of the stator grooves below at least one of the coils and projects at least partially beyond the stator yoke at the outer and/or inner diameter of the stator and, on the other hand, is configured as a fastening element at its outer and/or inner edge and the stator is fastened in the motor housing via the annular structural element, so that the annular structural element introduces load forces and load torques occurring in the axial flux machine from the stator into the motor housing. Claim 2 (Currently Amended): The axial flux machine according to claim 1,characterized in that wherein the annular structural element is configured as a positioning element at its outer and/or inner edge, so that the stator can be positioned via the annular structural element Claim 3 (Currently Amended): The axial flux machine according to claim 2,characterized in that wherein the annular structural element has suitable fastening elements via which the stator can be fastened in and/or on the motor housing via the annular structural element. Claim 4 (Currently Amended): The axial flux machine according to claim 3.”
The prior art of record, ip.com search, ai search and global dossier search references alone or combined fail to teach the combination of limitation of claims 4 with 1-3 al together. None of the prior art alone or combined teach all the limitations as claimed above.
PNG
media_image7.png
490
558
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
439
574
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
832
584
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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