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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/23/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Haran (US 20180287437) in view of Cao et al. (US 2015/0318742).
Regarding claim 7, Haran discloses:
A rotor for a rotating electric machine (abstract) including
a magnetic ring (para 42) comprising a predetermined number of pairs of poles (para 42, Figs 3A, 3B),
the magnetic ring being formed by an oriented-flux magnet segmented into at least two sub-magnets (Figs 3A, 3B),
Haran does not explicitly appear to teach wherein the minimum value out of an outer perimeter of the ring and the axial length of the ring is greater than the minimum value out of the value of a predetermined reference length and twice the value Pi, or wherein the reference length is equal to the maximum value selected out of the axial length, the height or the perimeter of the ring.
However, since Haran teaches to reduce the overall size of the motor (para 41), choose a radial thickness and length for the magnetic ring (para 42) and to choose inner and outer diameters of a rotor (para 85), and although increasing motor size can increase efficiency, it also corresponds to a substantial increase in weight, which may generally prevent substantial increases in motor size for some applications (e.g., aviation -para 83), to reduce size (para 72), choosing conductor wire sizes (para 53), selecting magnets based on size (para 62). Therefore, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the minimum value out of the outer perimeter of the ring and the axial length of the ring is greater than the minimum value out of the value of a predetermined reference length and twice the value Pi, and wherein the reference length is equal to the maximum value selected out of the axial length, the height or the perimeter of the ring, in order to achieve weight savings and direct flux as wanted (para 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Haran wherein the minimum value out of the outer perimeter of the ring and the axial length of the ring is greater than the minimum value out of the value of a predetermined reference length and twice the value Pi and wherein the reference length is equal to the maximum value selected out of the axial length, the height or the perimeter of the ring.
The motivation to do so would be to achieve weight savings and direct flux as wanted (paras 3, 42,53), cost (paras 36,37), desired overall size of the motor (paras 41,62,72,83 of Haran).
Haran does not teach a first sub-magnet of the at least two sub-magnets is formed from a first material and a second sub- magnet of the at least two sub-magnets is formed from a second material different from the first material.
Cao et al. discloses a device wherein a first magnet of the at least two magnets is formed from a first material and a second magnet of the at least two magnets is formed from a second material different from the first material (para 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Haran to have a first sub-magnet of the at least two sub-magnets is formed from a first material and a second sub- magnet of the at least two sub-magnets is formed from a second material different from the first material, as Cao et al. discloses.
The motivation to do so is that it would allow one to achieve a second rated full-load efficiency (para 8) and desired level of size and flux (para 34 of Cao et al.).
Regarding claim 7, If the “acts” of a claimed process manipulate only numbers, abstract concepts or ideas, or signals representing any of the foregoing, the acts are not being applied to appropriate subject matter. Schrader, 22F.3d at 294-95, 30USPQ2d at 1458-59. Thus, a process consisting solely of mathematical operations, i.e., converting one set of numbers into another set of numbers, does not manipulate appropriate subject matter and thus cannot constitute a statutory process. MPEP 2106.
In the instant case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Haran wherein the minimum value out of the outer perimeter of the ring and the axial length of the ring is greater than the minimum value out of the value of a predetermined reference length and twice the value Pi and wherein the reference length is equal to the maximum value selected out of the axial length, the height or the perimeter of the ring.
The motivation to do so would be to achieve weight savings and direct flux as wanted (paras 3, 42,53), cost (paras 36,37), desired overall size of the motor (paras 41,62,72,83 of Haran).
Regarding claim 8/7, Haran discloses a rotating electric machine including a rotor according to claim 7 (para 77).
Regarding claim 9/7, Haran discloses an aircraft including a rotating electric machine according to claim 8 (para 76).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights