DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4 & 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoemann (US 10,916,982) in view of Fatemi et al. (US Pat.Pub.2023/0070394).
Regarding claim 1, Hoemann teaches a motor rotor 14 comprising a cylindrical rotor body (core) 44 defining a rotor axis A, wherein the cylindrical rotor body has a diameter…, and wherein a length of the rotor body…,
a plurality of magnet slots 58 extending axially through the rotor body, wherein
a circumference of each of the magnet slots 58, in a plane perpendicular to the rotor axis, has a specific shape (Figs.4-5), wherein
the specific shape extends from a first radial position proximal to an outer circumference of the rotor body to a second radial position distal to the outer circumference (Fig.4), and the specific shape comprises a first (end) portion 64, a second (vertex) portion 66, and a narrowing (not numbered) between the first and second portions (c.6:41-63; Figs.4-5), a plurality of magnets 50 extending along the length of each of the magnet slots 58, where the magnets are positioned within the first portion 64 and separated from the second portion 66 by the narrowing (Fig.5), wherein
a pair of adjacent magnet slots 58 are oriented so that lines connecting the first and second radial positions of the respective magnet slots taper towards a radius 106 of the rotor body (Fig.5), and
the magnets 50 in the pair of the magnet slots 58 form a magnetic pole 110 (c.1:43-46; c.7:11-32; Fig.5).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hoemann’s cylindrical rotor body does not have a diameter in the range from 60 to 80 mm and a length in the range from 105 to 130 mm.
But, Fatemi teaches an electric machine 20 for a vehicle 10 with a rotor 40 comprising a cylindrical rotor body having a diameter in the range from 60 to 80 mm and wherein a length of the rotor body is in the range from 105 to 130 mm, i.e., “[a]n exemplary rotor core 41 has a maximum outer diameter of from 100 to 200 millimeters (mm) and a maximum axial length of from 50 to 200 millimeters (mm)” (¶[0048]; Figs.1-2). The maximum outer diameters and axial length for the rotor of the electrical machine for a vehicle disclosed by Fatemi constitute specific ranges for rotor diameter and axial length that encompass the claimed ranges, respectively. Put another way, the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the Fatemi. Per MPEP 2044.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to size Hoemann’s cylindrical rotor body to have a diameter in the range from 60 to 80 mm, and a length of the rotor body in the range from 105 to 130 mm since these ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, in particular Fatemi, who further teaches these size ranges are suitable for the rotor of an electrical machine for a vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, in Hoemann an angle between the lines connecting the first and second radial positions of the pair of shapes of the magnet slots 58 is in the range from 40 to 50 degrees (Figs.4-5).
Regarding claim 4, in Hoemann the second portion of the specific shape of the magnet slots 58 tapers towards the rotor axis A (Figs.4-5).
Regarding claim 6, in Hoemann an air gap is formed between a side of each of the magnets 50…closest to the outer circumference of the rotor body and a side of each of the magnet slots 58…closest to the outer circumference of the rotor body (Fig.5).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, in Hoemann “the number of poles is in the range from 10 to 18, such as in the range from 12 to 16, such as 14” [sic] (i.e., 10 poles for Figs.4-5 embodiment; c.10:50-54 also teaches variable number of rotor poles). Per MPEP 2131.03(I), a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range.
Regarding claim 8, Hoemann teaches a permanent magnet motor 10 comprising the motor rotor according to claim 1 and a stator 12 (Fig.3).
Claims 1 & 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 10,186,918) in view of Fatemi.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a motor rotor 104 comprising a cylindrical rotor body (stacked cores) 202 defining a rotor axis, wherein the cylindrical rotor body has a diameter…, and wherein a length of the rotor body…,
a plurality of magnet slots (cavities) 208/606/618 extending axially through the rotor body (Figs.2&6A-6B), wherein
a circumference of each of the magnet slots, in a plane perpendicular to the rotor axis, has a specific shape (Figs.6A-6B), wherein
the specific shape extends from a first radial position proximal to an outer circumference of the rotor body to a second radial position distal to the outer circumference (Figs.6A-6B), and
the specific shape comprises a first portion (first/second flux barrier) 606/616, a second portion (third/fourth flux barrier) 610/620, and a narrowing (not numbered) between the first and second portions (Figs.6A-6B), a plurality of magnets 110 extending along the length of each of the magnet slots, where the magnets are positioned within the first portion and separated from the second portion 610/620 by the narrowing (Figs.6A-6B), wherein
a pair of adjacent magnet slots 608/618 are oriented so that lines connecting the first and second radial positions of the respective magnet slots taper towards a radius of the rotor body (Figs.6A-6B), and
the magnets in the pair of the magnet slots form a magnetic pole (c.7:18-53; Figs.6A-6B).
PNG
media_image2.png
585
315
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim’s cylindrical rotor body does not have a diameter in the range from 60 to 80 mm and a length in the range from 105 to 130 mm.
But, Fatemi teaches an electric machine 20 for a vehicle 10 with a rotor 40 comprising a cylindrical rotor body having a diameter in the range from 60 to 80 mm and wherein a length of the rotor body is in the range from 105 to 130 mm, i.e., “[a]n exemplary rotor core 41 has a maximum outer diameter of from 100 to 200 millimeters (mm) and a maximum axial length of from 50 to 200 millimeters (mm)” (¶[0048]; Figs.1-2). The maximum outer diameters and axial length for the rotor of the electrical machine for a vehicle disclosed by Fatemi constitute specific ranges for rotor diameter and axial length that encompass the claimed ranges, respectively. Put another way, the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the Fatemi. Per MPEP 2044.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to size Kim’s cylindrical rotor body to have a diameter in the range from 60 to 80 mm, and a length of the rotor body in the range from 105 to 130 mm since these ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, in particular Fatemi, who further teaches these size ranges are suitable for the rotor of an electrical machine for a vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, in Kim an angle between the lines connecting the first and second radial positions of the pair of shapes of the magnet slots 608/618 is in the range from 40 to 50 degrees such as around 45 degrees (Figs.6A-6B).
Regarding claim 4, in Kim the second portion 610/620 of the specific shape of the magnet slots tapers towards the rotor axis (Figs.6A-6B&7).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the second portion 610/620 of the specific shape of one of the magnet slots 608/618 of the pair of adjacent magnet slots comprises a straight extension (not numbered) parallel with a radial direction of the rotor body and parallel with a corresponding straight extension (not numbered) of the specific shape of the second portion of the other of the magnet slots of the pair of adjacent magnet slots (Figs.6A-6B)..
Regarding claim 6, in Kim an air gap is formed between a side of each of the magnets 110…closest to the outer circumference of the rotor body and a side of each of the magnet slots 608/618…closest to the outer circumference of the rotor body (Figs.6A-6B).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the number of permanent magnets 110 is not limited to twelve (six pairs), and may be changed to realize desired characteristics (e.g. the number of poles) of the motor (c.6:22-25). This suggests specific pole numbers within the claimed range as well as overlapping ranges with sufficient specificity. Per MPEP 2131.03(I), a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range and according to MPEP 2131.03(II), prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a permanent magnet motor comprising the motor rotor according to claim 1 and a stator 102 (Fig.1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoemann & Fatemi or Kim & Fatemi as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Văscan et al. (“PMSM Rotor Topologies for Automotive HVAC System”, 2019 Electric Vehicles International Conference (EV), Bucharest, Romania, 2019, pp.1-4.
Each of Hoemann & Fatemi or Kim & Fatemi substantially teach the invention including a motor comprising a stator and motor rotor according to claim 1, but do not further teach an impeller, wherein a rotation axis of the impeller is coaxial with the rotor axis.
But, Văscan teaches automotive heating, ventilation and air-conditioning permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) drives (abstract), which encompass impellers driven by and co-axial with PMSM rotors. PMSM drives are suitable for many applications---including driving the HVAC compressor---due to high power factor, compactness & sinusoidal distribution of magnetic flux (p.1, col.2)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the motor of Hoemann & Fatemi or Kim & Fatemi to drive an impeller, wherein a rotation axis of the impeller is coaxial with the rotor axis, since Văscan teaches PMSM drives are suitable for HVAC applications due to their high power factor, compactness & sinusoidal distribution of magnetic flux.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoemann, Fatemi & Văscan or Kim, Fatemi & Văscan as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Dossner et al. (US 10,670,044).
Regarding claim 10, each of Hoemann, Fatemi & Văscan and Kim, Fatemi & Văscan substantially teach the invention but do not specifically teach the impeller has a diameter in the range from 600 to 1700 mm.
But, Dossner teaches an axial impeller 1 for a fan or blower used in motor vehicles and drive by a motor (on mount 12), the rotation axis of the impeller is coaxial with the rotor axis (c.1:5-12; c.5:6-8; c.6:43-49; Fig.5) wherein the impeller has a typical outer diameter in the range of 400-1500 mm, for example 615 mm (c.6:50-53). Per MPEP 2131.03(I), a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range and according to MPEP 2131.03(II), prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the impeller diameter of Hoemann, Fatemi & Văscan or Kim, Fatemi & Văscan in the range from 600 to 1700 mm since Dossner teaches a specific example within the claimed range as well as that an overlapping range with sufficient specificity was typical for impellers used in automotive applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 May 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant amends claim 1 to incorporate ranges for rotor diameter and axial length. But, as explained above, these ranges are disclosed by Fatemi in ¶[0048] where “[a]n exemplary rotor core 41 has a maximum outer diameter of from 100 to 200 millimeters (mm) and a maximum axial length of from 50 to 200 millimeters (mm).” Per MPEP 2144.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It is further noted that internal permanent magnet (IPM) rotor core diameter and length are well-known design variables. For instance, Lin (“A Design Paradigm for V-shape Interior Permanent-Magnet Machines Using Multi-Objective Optimization”) teaches the rotor stack length ls and radius rrg are factors determining total flux Φmp (pp.17-18 & 29; Fig.2.1; Eq.3.1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights