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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-9, 13, and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WOOLMER(EP2773023A1) in view of EVANS(EP2620653B1).
Regarding claim 1, Woolmer teaches a containment ring(Para[0037], fibre over-winding constitutes a containment ring) for a rotor(10) of an axial flux machine(Para[0028]), the containment ring comprising: a polymer fibre fabric ring(50, toroidally wound forms a polymer fibre fabric ring) arranged around an outer circumference of a rotor body(20, 30, 40) of the rotor(10).
Woolmer is silent wherein the polymer fibre fabric ring comprising one or more pockets configured for capturing debris impacting a surface of the polymer fibre fabric ring.
However, Evans teaches wherein a turbomachine casing(200) comprising one or more pockets(230) configured for capturing debris impacting a surface of the polymer fibre fabric ring(Para[0062-0067]).
Evans is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Woolmer because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Woolmer wherein the polymer fibre fabric ring comprising one or more pockets configured for capturing debris impacting a surface of the polymer fibre fabric ring, as taught by Evans. One would be motivated to do this in order to improve safety performance and structural integrity.
Regarding claim 3/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
Evans further teaches wherein the one or more pockets(230) are provided around said outer circumference(Para[0034]) in a plurality of layers(Figs. 8-10, multiple fabric plies layered in infill member 170).
Regarding claim 6/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
Evans further teaches wherein at least one of the pockets(230) is configured to absorb kinetic energy from the debris by deforming(Para[0066]).
Regarding claim 7/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
Evans further teaches wherein at least one of the pockets(230) is configured to retain the debris(Para[0027]).
Regarding claim 8/6, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
Evans further teaches wherein said deforming comprising a collapsing of the pocket(230)(Para[0056-0069], describes structural collapse under impact load).
Regarding claim 9/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
Evans further teaches wherein at least one of the pockets(230) is provided with an aperture(hollow or fluid filled interior of pocket) configured to receive debris therethrough to capture the debris inside the pocket(Para[0056-0060]).
Regarding claim 13/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein a rotor-facing surface(face of rotor 10) of the polymer fibre fabric ring(50) defines one or more corrugations thereon.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a rotor-facing surface of the polymer fibre fabric ring defines one or more corrugations thereon, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to do this in order to improve impact dissipation and enhance debris capture reliability.
Regarding claim 17/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
Woolmer further teaches a rotor(10) for an axial flux machine, the rotor comprising: a disc-shaped rotor body(20, 30, 40) having an axis of rotation and an opening at the axis of rotation; a plurality of permanent magnets(40) mounted to a first face of the rotor body(20,30, 40) circumferentially around the axis of rotation; and a containment ring(50) according to claim 1 arranged around an outer circumference of the rotor body(20,30,40)(Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 18/17, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 17.
Woolmer in view of Evans further teaches comprising a rotor housing(Woolmer casing of rotor 10) for housing the disc-shaped rotor body(Woolmer 20,30,40), wherein the one or more pockets(Evans 230) of the containment ring(Woolmer 50) are arranged around an inner circumference of the rotor housing to protect said inner circumference from said debris.
Regarding claim 19/18, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 18.
Woolmer in view of Evans teaches wherein the rotor housing comprises a material vulnerable to debris penetration(Rotor housings are inherently vulnerable to debris penetration. Evans further supports this with a fan casing being vulnerable in Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 20/19, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 19.
Woolmer in view of Evans teaches wherein said material comprises one or more of aluminum, magnesium, alloys of aluminum, alloys of magnesium, a polymer(Inherent since Rotor housings are commonly made of aluminum, thin metal, or some sort of polymer in the art).
Regarding claim 21/17, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 17.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the rotor housing comprises a pressure release configured to depressurize a space inside the rotor housing.
However, it would have been obvious to include a pressure release in the rotor housing to prevent buildup within the housing during abnormal operating conditions such as debris impact of thermal events. Pressure relief vents are commonly incorporated in motor housings and enclosed mechanical systems to prevent structural failure due to internal pressure buildup.
Regarding claim 22/17, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 17.
Woolmer further teaches an axial flux machine(Para[0001]) and a stator(Para[0001]).
Regarding claim 23/33, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the axial flux machine of claim 22.
Woolmer in view of Evans further teaches a flying vehicle(Para[0001], such axial flux machines are well known in the art to be used in flying vehicles).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WOOLMER(EP2773023A1) in view of EVANS(EP2620653B1) and further in view of BROWNE(US5914163A).
Regarding claim 2/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
The combination is silent wherein one or more perforations configured to tear upon impact of the debris to absorb kinetic energy from the debris.
However, Browne teaches wherein a polymer fibre fabric ring(Figs. 3a-3c, multilayers fiber-reinforced polymer matric composite tube) comprises one or more perforations(58, 60, 66) configured to tear( upon impact of the debris to absorb kinetic energy(tube designed to absorb crash energy by progressive crush) from the debris.
Browne is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Woolmer in view of Evans because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Woolmer in view of Evans wherein one or more perforations configured to tear upon impact of the debris to absorb kinetic energy from the debris, as taught by Browne. One would be motivated to do this in order to promote controlled tearing and reduce peak impact loads which increases efficiency.
Regarding claim 4/2, Woolmer in view of Evans and Browne teaches the containment ring of claim 2.
Browne further teaches wherein the one or more pockets(fabric ply region surrounding slits 58, 60, 66) are provided around said outer circumference in a plurality of layers(52,54,56,72) and wherein at least one of the perforations(58, 60, 66) extends from a first layer into a second layer of said pockets(Fig. 3c, staggered length slits through successive plies) and wherein the tearing of the perforation provides a path for the debris to move through the first layer into the second layer(Longitudinal tearing propagates through layers to enable crush and energy absorption).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WOOLMER(EP2773023A1) in view of EVANS(EP2620653B1) and further in view of FU(US6825137B2).
Regarding claim 10/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
The combination is silent wherein an inside surface of at least one of the pockets is provided with an adhesive for securing debris thereto.
However, Fu teaches wherein an inside surface of at least one of a panel(30) is provided with an adhesive(layer 34 gummy resin layer) for securing debris thereto.
Fu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Woolmer in view of Evans because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Woolmer in view of Evans wherein an inside surface of at least one of the pockets is provided with an adhesive for securing debris thereto., as taught by Fu. One would be motivated to do this in order to improve debris retention which improves efficiency.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WOOLMER(EP2773023A1) in view of EVANS(EP2620653B1) and further in view of HART(US4536524A).
Regarding claim 11/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
The combination is silent wherein the polymer fibre fabric ring comprises a microsphere material, the microsphere material comprising an adhesive configured to be released upon impact of the debris onto the microsphere material.
However, Hart teaches wherein the polymer fibre fabric ring comprises a microsphere material(microcapsules), the microsphere material comprising an adhesive(epoxy resin) configured to be released upon impact of the debris onto the microsphere material(Background of Invention)
Hart is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Woolmer in view of Evans because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Woolmer in view of Evans wherein the polymer fibre fabric ring comprises a microsphere material, the microsphere material comprising an adhesive configured to be released upon impact of the debris onto the microsphere material, as taught by Hart. One would be motivated to do this in order to enhance debris retention following impact which increases efficiency of the ring.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WOOLMER(EP2773023A1) in view of EVANS(EP2620653B1) and further in view of DU(US7806670B2).
Regarding claim 12/1, Woolmer in view of Evans teaches the containment ring of claim 1.
The combination is silent comprising an absorbent material configured to absorb leaking fluid of the axial flux machine.
However, Du teaches comprising an absorbent material(56,58,60) configured to absorb leaking fluid of the axial flux machine(Para[0038]).
Du is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Woolmer in view of Evans because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Woolmer in view of Evans wherein comprising an absorbent material configured to absorb leaking fluid of the axial flux machine, as taught by Du. One would be motivated to do this in order to manage leakage of lubricants to enhance machine reliability and prevent secondary damage.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WOOLMER(EP2773023A1) in view of THOMPSON(GB2365926A).
Regarding claim 15, Woolmer teaches a containment ring(Para[0037], fibre over-winding constitutes a containment ring) for a rotor(10) of an axial flux machine(Para[0028]), the containment ring comprising: a polymer fibre fabric ring(50, toroidally wound forms a polymer fibre fabric ring) arranged around an outer circumference of a rotor body(20, 30, 40) of the rotor(10).
Woolmer is silent the polymer fibre fabric ring defining one or more corrugations configured for capturing debris impacting a surface of the polymer fibre fabric ring.
However, Thompson teaches wherein one or more corrugations(54,56) configured for capturing debris impacting a surface of the polymer fibre fabric ring(38, containment assembly).
Thompson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Woolmer because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Woolmer wherein the polymer fibre fabric ring defining one or more corrugations configured for capturing debris impacting a surface of the polymer fibre fabric ring, as taught by Thompson. One would be motivated to do this in order to improve impact dissipation and enhance debris capture reliability.
Regarding claim 16/15, Woolmer in view of Thompson teaches the containment ring of claim 15.
Thompson further teaches wherein the polymer fibre fabric ring(38) comprises a plurality of layers of corrugations(54,56, 62) together forming a plurality of enclosed spaces(61) for capturing said debris.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5/4/2/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the tear path extends under a non-torn portion of the first layer whereby the debris is captured under the non-torn portion of the first layer”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14/13/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the corrugations define threading on the rotor-facing surface”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect. uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834