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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 July 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Delete “being” (lines 2&3).
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.
Claims 7 & 10 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.
In claim 7, recitation “the number of poles is in the range from 10 to 18, such as in the range from 12 to 16, such as 14” is indefinite.
In claim 10, “the impeller” lacks antecedent basis. The claim will be understood to depend from claim 9 instead of claim 8.
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 1, 3-4 & 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoemann (US 10,916,982) 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).
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 differs only in that the cylindrical rotor body does not have a diameter in the range from 60 to 80 mm, and a length of the rotor body is in the range from 90 to 150 mm.
But, Văscan teaches these parameters for rotors for automotive heating, ventilation and air-conditioning permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) drives. In particular, Văscan teaches an interior permanent magnet (IPM) rotor with V-shape permanent magnet (VPM) topology designed using finite element methods (FEM) having an axial length of 90 mm and a rotor radius of 68 mm (Table 1). Per MPEP 2131.03(I), a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range. “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure Hoemann’s rotor diameter to be in the range from 60 to 80 mm and with a length of the rotor body in the range from 90 to 150 mm since Văscan teaches this range was known for VPM rotors used for automotive heating, ventilation and air-conditioning PMSM drives.
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 such as around 45 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).
Regarding claim 9, 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.
Claims 1 & 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 10,186,918) in view of Văscan.
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 differs only in that the cylindrical rotor body does not have a diameter in the range from 60 to 80 mm, and a length of the rotor body is in the range from 90 to 150 mm.
But, Văscan teaches these parameters for rotors for automotive heating, ventilation and air-conditioning permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) drives. In particular, Văscan teaches an interior permanent magnet (IPM) rotor with V-shape permanent magnet (VPM) topology designed using finite element methods (FEM) having an axial length of 90 mm and a rotor radius of 68 mm (Table 1). Per MPEP 2131.03(I), a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range. “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the diameter of Kim’s rotor with V-shaped slots to be in the range from 60 to 80 mm and with a length of the rotor body in the range from 90 to 150 mm since Văscan teaches this range was known for VPM rotors used for automotive heating, ventilation and air-conditioning PMSM drives.
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, as best understood, 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).
Regarding claim 9, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoemann & Văscan or Kim & Văscan as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, further in view of Laldin et al. (US 10,211,690).
Each of Hoemann & Văscan and Kim & Văscan substantially teach the invention including a rotor, but the rotor body length is not in the range of 105 to 130 mm.
But, Laldin teaches an IPM machine for automotive vehicles comprising a rotor with v-shaped slots for the magnets having a body length of 115 mm (c.13:1-8; Table 5; Figs.6A-6B) and another with a rotor with a body length of 106 mm (c.13:23-44; Table 6). Per MPEP 2131.03(I), a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the rotor body length of Hoemann & Văscan or Kim & Văscan to be in the range of 105 to 130 mm since Laldin teaches a V-shaped rotor with a specific example within the range would have been desirable for an IPM rotor body for automotive vehicles.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoemann & Văscan or Kim & Văscan as applied to claim 9 1 above, further in view of Dossner et al. (US 10,670,044).
Each of Hoemann & Văscan and Kim & Văscan substantially teach the invention including an impeller, but do not teach the impeller has a diameter in the range from 600 to 1700 mm.
But, Dossner teaches an axial impeller for a fan or blower used in motor vehicles (c.1:5-12; c.5:6-8) 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 & Văscan or Kim & 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.
Conclusion
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
1 As noted in the rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, the claim is treated as depending from claim 9 instead of claim 8.