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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 20 (numbered as 18 on page 2), 21, 30, 31, 33, 34 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 has been numbered as claim 18 on page 2 of the claims. A previous claim 18 exists on page 1. For examination purposes claim 18 on page 2 will be examined as claim 20.
Claims 20, 21 recites “a bridge of material” which was already recited in claim 17.
Claim 30 recites “a stack of laminations” which was already recited in claim 29.
Claim 31 recites “the tongues” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 33 recites “a rotary electric machine” and “a rotor” which were already recited in claim 17.
Claim 34 recites “the stator” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 35 recites “a rotor,” “a rotor shaft,” “a rotor mass” and “at least one bridge of material” which was already recited in claim 17.
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.
Claims 17 and 20-36 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.
Claim 17 recites “a smaller width “ in lines 10 and 12 to describe the width of two different structures. Examiner suggests differentiating between the two “smaller width” to remove ambiguity.
Claims 20-36 are rejected for depending upon claim 17.
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 34 recites the broad recitation “at least some of the electrical conductors,” and the claim also recites “even most of the electrical conductors” 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.
For examination purposes, the broadest limitation will be used to examine the claim.
Also, the second claim 18 on page 2 of the claims should be claim 20.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-20, 27-30 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (US 2020/0244117 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Goldstein discloses a rotor (¶ [0015]) of an electric machine (20, 34), rotating about an axis of rotation, the rotor comprising:
a shaft (¶ [0015] rotor shaft) arranged along the axis of rotation,
a rotor mass (50), extending along the axis of rotation and disposed around the shaft(¶ [0015]), the rotor mass (50) comprising:
a central bore (88) for the passage of the shaft,
at least two openings (78), provided in the rotor mass (50) and distributed circumferentially around the central bore (88), the two openings (78) leaving a radial strip (see annotation below) therebetween, the radial strip having a smaller width,
at least one bridge of material (see annotation below) being provided between an opening (78) and the central bore (88), the bridge of material being of variable width and having a greater width (distance from mid-point between points 90 and the central bore) and a smaller width (distance between points 90 and the central bore), and having on either side of its greater width areas of smaller width, and the ratio between the smaller width of the radial strip and the larger width of the bridge of material being between 0.75 and 1.25 (FIG. 4; the distance between openings 78 is similar to the distance between the central bore and the openings 78).
While drawings are not to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art replicating the disclosure of Goldstein would understand that the smaller width of the radial strip has similar length to the greater width of the bridge. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the ratio of the smaller width of the radial strip and the larger width of the bridge of material would be close to 1:1.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Goldstein discloses a rotor (¶ [0015]) of an electric machine (20, 34), rotating about an axis of rotation, the rotor comprising:
a shaft (¶ [0015] rotor shaft) arranged along the axis of rotation,
a rotor mass (50), extending along the axis of rotation and disposed around the shaft(¶ [0015]), the rotor mass (50) comprising:
a central bore (88) for the passage of the shaft,
at least two openings (78), the openings (78) being all identical, provided in the rotor mass (50) and distributed circumferentially around the central bore (88), the two openings (78) leaving a radial strip (see annotation below) therebetween, the radial strip having a smaller width,
at least one bridge of material (see annotation below) being provided between an opening (78) and the central bore (88), the bridge of material being of variable width and having a greater width (distance from mid-point between points 90 and the central bore) and a smaller width (distance between points 90 and the central bore), and the ratio between the smaller width of the radial strip and the larger width of the bridge of material being between 0.75 and 1.25 (FIG. 4; the distance between openings 78 is similar to the distance between the central bore and the openings 78).
While drawings are not to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art replicating the disclosure of Goldstein would understand that the smaller width of the radial strip has similar length to the greater width of the bridge. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the ratio of the smaller width of the radial strip and the larger width of the bridge of material would be close to 1:1.
Regarding claim 19/18, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 18. Goldstein further discloses the bridge of material comprising areas of smaller width on either side of its larger width (see annotation above).
Regarding claim 20/17, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 17. Goldstein does not explicitly disclose the ratio between the larger width of a bridge of material and the smaller width of a bridge of material being between 1.10 and 3.00, and drawings are not to scale, but as seen in FIG. 4, the larger width as annotated above is clearly larger than the smaller width. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ratio of the smaller width to the larger width would have to be bigger than 1.1 when replicating the disclosure of Goldstein. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the ratio of the smaller width and the larger width of the bridge of material would be larger than 1:1.1.
Regarding claim 27/17, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 17. Goldstein further discloses the variations in width of the bridge of material forming recesses (at point 90) around the larger width of the bridge material (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 28/17, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 17. Goldstein further discloses the variations in width of the bridge of material forming recesses (98) around the larger width at the edge of the central bore (88; FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 29/17, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 17. Goldstein further discloses the rotor mass (50) being formed of a stack of laminations (50 is rotor lamination) forming stacks (¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 30/29, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 29. Goldstein further discloses the rotor mass (50) being formed of a stack of laminations at least identical on the side of the shaft (rotor shaft; each lamination is attached to the shaft with the key 96).
Regarding claim 33/17, a rotary electric machine (20, 34) comprising a rotor (¶ [0015]) according to claim 17 and a stator (a generator or motor inherently has a stator).
Claims 21-23, 25-26 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (US 2020/0244117 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2015/0137632 A1).
Regarding claim 21/17, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 17. Goldstein does not disclose a bridge of material comprising one or more tongues arranged between the areas of smaller width.
Takahashi discloses a bridge of material comprising one or more tongues (22b) arranged between the areas of smaller width (FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Goldstein in view of Takahashi to disclose a bridge of material comprising one or more tongues arranged between the areas of smaller width, for the advantages of preventing deformation of the rotor core to preserve the outer radial shape of the rotor core after inserting the rotor shaft into the rotor core (¶ [0057]).
Regarding claim 22/21, Goldstein in view of Takahashi was discussed above in claim 21. Takahashi further discloses the tongue (22b) being shrink-fitted onto the shaft (13; ¶ [0037] press-fit).
Regarding claim 23/21, Goldstein in view of Takahashi was discussed above in claim 21. Takahashi further discloses a circumferential dimension of the tongue being between 1 and 40% of the diameter of the central bore (¶ [0039]).
The recesses 22a are set to be 1.5 time the circumference of the tongue 22b. Each tongue has a circumferential length of 5% of the total circumference of the central bore. The percentage of the length to the total circumference is π x 0.05, which is equal to 15.71%.
Regarding claim 25/17, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 17. Goldstein does not explicitly disclose the shaft being substantially smooth.
Takahashi discloses the shaft (13) being substantially smooth (FIG. 1, 2; the shaft is press-fit to the rotor core, which would require the shaft to be substantially smooth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Goldstein in view of Takahashi to disclose the shaft being substantially smooth, to ensure the shaft can be inserted into the rotor core.
Regarding claim 26/25, Goldstein in view of Takahashi was discussed above in claim 25. Takahashi further discloses the shaft (13) being devoid of surface roughness (FIG. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 32/17, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 17. Goldstein does not disclose the openings having a larger circumferential dimension of between 5 mm and 100 mm.
While Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the circumferential dimension of the openings (27, 27A), it does disclose that the openings can be a large width of W1 or small width of W3. Takahashi discloses that the circumferential dimension of the openings can be easily changed to fit the needs of one or ordinary skill in the art, indicating that choosing a circumferential dimension of the openings is routine optimization.
Regarding claim 35/17, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 17. Goldstein further discloses a method of manufacturing a rotor (¶ [0015]) according to claim 17, comprising the following steps:
(a) provide a rotor shaft (¶ [0015] rotor shaft) and a rotor mass (50) comprising at least one bridge of material of variable width (see annotation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Goldstein does not disclose (b) assembly the rotor mass on the rotor shaft, by shrink-fitting.
Takahashi discloses (b) assembly the rotor mass (21) on the rotor shaft (13), by shrink-fitting (¶ [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Goldstein in view of Takahashi to disclose (b) assembly the rotor mass on the rotor shaft, by shrink-fitting, for the advantages of ensuring the rotor and the rotor shaft rotates together without play.
Regarding claim 36/35, Goldstein in view of Takahashi was discussed above in claim 35. Takahashi further discloses the bridge(s) of material undergoing elastic and/or plastic deformation (¶ [0057]) when the rotor mass (50) is inserted onto the shaft (13).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (US 2020/0244117 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 2014/0152138 A1).
Regarding claim 31/30, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 30. Goldstein does not disclose at least a first and a second stack of laminations of the stack of laminations being angularly offset such that the tongues of the bridges of material of the first stack are not aligned with the tongues of the bridges of material of the second stack.
Tanaka discloses at least a first and a second stack of laminations of the stack of laminations (20) being angularly offset (FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Goldstein in view of Tanaka to disclose at least a first and a second stack of laminations of the stack of laminations being angularly offset, for the advantages of creating a cooling flow of air as the rotor rotates (¶ [0051]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (US 2020/0244117 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Imai et al. (US 2012/0169163 A1).
Regarding claim 34/17, Goldstein was discussed above in claim 17. Goldstein does not explicitly disclose the stator comprising electrical conductors, at least some of the electrical conductors, or even most of the electrical conductors, being in the form of U- or I-shaped pins.
Imai discloses the stator (6) comprising electrical conductors (IS, OS), at least some of the electrical conductors (IS, OS) being in the form of U- or I-shaped pins (FIG. 8, 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Goldstein in view of Imai to disclose the stator comprising electrical conductors, at least some of the electrical conductors, or even most of the electrical conductors, being in the form of U- or I-shaped pins, for the advantages of allowing easy automated inserting of hairpin windings into the stators.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 24/23, the specific limitation of “the circumferential dimension of the tongue being of the order of 9% of the diameter of the central bore” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
The closest prior art Goldstein discloses a rotor lamination with openings, a rotor shaft hole and a key to attach to a rotor shaft, but does not explicitly disclose the dimension of the key is 9% of the diameter of the rotor shaft hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MINKI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights