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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the drawings:
The drawings were objected to due to including reference characters not mentioned in the description. The Applicant amended the specification with respect to the drawings, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification was objected to for an informality and the abstract was objected to for not being provided on a separate sheet. The Applicant amended the specification to correct the informality, but an abstract is still required on a separate sheet with an ABST doc code, therefore the specification remains objected to.
Regarding objections to the claims:
Claims 10 and 15 were objected to for multiple informalities. The Applicant amended claims 10 and 15 to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §112:
Claim 8 was rejected as being indefinite. The Applicant amended the claim to correct the indefiniteness, therefore the rejection was withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-14 were rejected as being anticipated by Urano. Claim 3 was rejected as being obvious over Urano in view of Soderberg. Claim 9 was rejected as being obvious over Urano in view of Wang. Claim 15 was rejected as being obvious over Urano in view of Kupiszewski. The Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 15 and canceled claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 5/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 15 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Japanese Patent No. 2016-220286 to Kanda et al.
Specification
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. 2016-213980 to Urano et al. (hereinafter Urano; provided by Applicant on 6/20/2024) in view of Japanese Patent No. 2016-220286 to Kanda et al. (hereinafter Kanda).
Regarding claim 1, Urano teaches a method for producing a component (FIG. 2, 1) of an electric machine (Paragraph [0001]), the method comprising:
arranging at least one permanent magnet device (FIG. 1(a), 4) of the component on or at the component, together with at least one mechanical restraining device (FIG. 1(a), 10) for spatially fixing the at least one permanent magnet device, the at least one mechanical restraining device consisting of a composite material or containing the composite material (Paragraph [0012]); and
performing a thermal treatment of the component (Paragraph [0015]).
Urano does not teach during a thermal treatment of the component, targeted controlling of a magnetic field of the at least one permanent magnet device, the targeted controlling comprising applying a magnetic field to the component after the arranging of the at least one permanent magnet device and the at least one mechanical restraining device on or at the component, wherein both a magnetic field strength and an induction are positive.
However, Kanda teaches during a thermal treatment of a component (FIG. 1, 10; Paragraph [0039]), targeted controlling of a magnetic field of the at least one permanent magnet device, the targeted controlling comprising applying a magnetic field to the component after the arranging of the at least one permanent magnet device (FIG. 1, 13) and the at least one mechanical restraining device on or at the component, wherein both a magnetic field strength and an induction are positive (Paragraph [0044]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Urano with the teachings of Kanda to apply a magnetic field to stabilize the magnet against demagnetization (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Urano further teaches: before, during, or after the arranging of the at least one permanent magnet device and the at least one mechanical restraining device, arranging at least one magnetic shunt (FIG. 1(a), 11) on or at the component, so that the at least one magnetic shunt interacts magnetically with the at least one permanent magnet device (Paragraph [0015]-[0016]); and
subjecting the at least one permanent magnet device, the at least one mechanical restraining device, and the at least one magnetic shunt to a thermal treatment for curing the at least one mechanical restraining device (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the method of claim 2, wherein Urano further teaches the at least one magnetic shunt including soft magnetic material or consists of the soft magnetic material (Paragraph [0010]; [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the method of claim 4, wherein Urano further teaches the soft magnetic material being an electric sheet steel having an iron-silicon alloy (Paragraph [0010]; [0015]).
Regarding claim 6, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the method of claim 4, wherein Urano further teaches the soft magnetic material being used in a flat form (FIG. 1(a), 11; Paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 7, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the method of claim 2, wherein Urano further teaches the at least one magnetic shunt being configured as a ring or cylindrical component that is arranged concentrically around the at least one permanent magnet device (FIG. 1(a), 11; Paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Urano further teaches carrying out the thermal treatment at more than 140 °C (FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Urano teaches a component (FIG. 2, 1) of an electric machine (Paragraph [0001]), the component comprising:
at least one permanent magnet device (FIG. 1(a), 4); and
at least one mechanical restraining device (FIG. 1(a), 10) configured for spatially fixing the permanent magnet device, wherein the at least one permanent magnet device is arranged on or at the component together with the at least one mechanical restraining device, and wherein the at least one mechanical restraining device consists of a composite material or contains the composite material (Paragraph [0012]); and
at least one magnetic shunt (FIG. 1(a), 11) arranged on or at the component, so that the at least one magnetic shunt interacts magnetically with the at least one permanent magnet (Paragraph [0015]-[0016]).
Urano does not teach during a thermal treatment of the component, targeted control of a magnetic field of the at least one permanent magnet device including application of the magnetic field to the component after the arranging of the at least one permanent magnet device and the at least one mechanical restraining device on or at the component, wherein both a magnetic field strength and an induction are positive.
However, Kanda teaches during a thermal treatment of a component (FIG. 1, 10; Paragraph [0039]), targeted control of the magnetic field of the at least one permanent magnet device including application of the magnetic field to the component after the arranging of the at least one permanent magnet device (FIG. 1, 13) and the at least one mechanical restraining device on or at the component, wherein both a magnetic field strength and an induction are positive (Paragraph [0044]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the component of Urano with the teachings of Kanda to apply a magnetic field to stabilize the magnet against demagnetization (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the component of claim 10, wherein Urano further teaches the component being configured as a rotor of an electric motor (Paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 12, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the component of claim 10, wherein Urano further teaches the at least one magnetic shunt being configured as a ring or cylindrical component that is arranged concentrically around the at least one permanent magnet device (FIG. 1(a), 11; Paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 13, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the component of claim 10, wherein Urano further teaches the at least one magnetic shunt including soft magnetic material or consists of the soft magnetic material (Paragraph [0010]; [0015]).
Regarding claim 14, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the component of claim 13, wherein Urano further teaches the soft magnetic material is an electric sheet steel having an iron-silicon alloy (Paragraph [0010]; [0015]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Kanda and in further view of Chinese Patent No. 103779985 to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang; provided by Applicant on 6/20/2024).
Regarding claim 9, Urano in view of Kanda teaches the method of claim 1.
Urano in view of Kanda does not teach the thermal treatment being carried out at 5 to 10 °C below a glass transition temperature or a smallest value of a glass transition range of the at least one mechanical restraining device.
However, Wang teaches a thermal treatment of a carbon fiber fabric around a magnet ring wherein the temperature does not exceed the glass transition temperature of the epoxy resin the carbon fiber fabric (Paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Urano in view of Kanda with the thermal treatment of Wang to ensure the thermal stability of the mechanical restraining device and reduce the likelihood of it failing.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Kanda and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0050806 to Kupiszewski et al. (hereinafter Kupiszewski; cited by Applicant on 6/20/2024).
Regarding claim 15, Urano teaches an electric motor (Paragraph [0001]) comprising:
a component (FIG. 2, 1) comprising:
at least one permanent magnet device (FIG. 1(a), 4); and
at least one mechanical restraining device (FIG. 1(a), 10) configured for spatially fixing the at least one permanent magnet device, wherein the at least one permanent magnet device is arranged on or at the component together with the at least one mechanical restraining device, and wherein the at least one mechanical restraining device consists of a composite material or contains the composite material (Paragraph [0012]); and
at least one magnetic shunt (FIG. 1(a), 11) arranged on or at the component, so that the at least one magnetic shunt interacts magnetically with the at least one permanent magnet device (Paragraph [0015]-[0016]).
Urano does not teach the electric motor being in an aircraft propulsion system and that during a thermal treatment of the component, targeted control of a magnetic field of the at least one permanent magnet device including application of the magnetic field to the component after the arranging of the at least one permanent magnet device and the at least one mechanical restraining device on or at the component, wherein both a magnetic field strength and an induction are positive.
However, Kanda teaches during a thermal treatment of a component (FIG. 1, 10; Paragraph [0039]), targeted control of the magnetic field of the at least one permanent magnet device including application of the magnetic field to the component after the arranging of the at least one permanent magnet device (FIG. 1, 13) and the at least one mechanical restraining device on or at the component, wherein both a magnetic field strength and an induction are positive (Paragraph [0044]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Urano with the teachings of Kanda to apply a magnetic field to stabilize the magnet against demagnetization (Paragraph [0064]).
Urano in view of Kanda does not teach the electric motor being in an aircraft propulsion system.
However, Kupiszewski teaches an electric motor (FIG. 3, 246) incorporated into an aircraft propulsion system (Paragraph [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Urano in view of Kanda by incorporating it into the electric propulsion system of Kupiszewski for the electric propulsion system of Kupiszewski to benefit from the features of the electric motor of Urano in view of Kanda.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights