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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on June 27, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP23181709.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 of the remarks, filed June 12, 2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of the figures have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) Applicant argues on pages 5-7 of the remarks regarding the amended claim 1 language that Moore does not show the unmagnetized region configured in one piece with the permanent magnet, rather the component lies within the rotor disc.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the unmagnetized region (410) is configured in one piece with the permanent magnets (404). They are assembled together into a single unified unit therefore teaching the claim limitation of “the unmagnetised region is configured in one piece with the permanent magnets.”
2) Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks regarding claim 5, “that Moore does not teach or disclose a base surface of the permanent magnets having permanent magnet edges running obliquely to one another, wherein the permanent magnet edges have a curvature that increases continuously from an inner side facing the central axis to an outer side facing away from the central axis. As seen in Figures 10-12 of Moore, there are only trapezoidal magnets with radial extending side surfaces, but without any curvature. The specification teaches, "recesses 406 and rotor magnets 404 have a trapezoidal shape and are positioned proximate a rotor tip 408." Moreover, neither Moore nor Busch teaches the above-mentioned features of dependent claim 5.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Moore teaches in paragraphs 0060 and 0077 that the magnets may be any shape. Therefore, Moore teaches and discloses the limitations of claim 5.
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, 2, 4-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 2018/0138767), in view of Busch (US 2014/0197711).
Regarding claim 1, Moore discloses an axial flux machine (350 of Figure 5-12) with a permanent magnet arrangement (404 of Figure 10-12) for use as a rotor (400 of Figure 10-12) or a stator (354 of Figure 5, 7-9) of an axial flux machine,
wherein the permanent magnet arrangement has a plurality of permanent magnets (404 of Figure 10-12) arranged in a ring-shaped manner around a central axis (see Figure 12; Para. 0077) and each magnetised in an axial direction running parallel to the central axis (Para. 0075), and
wherein permanent magnets arranged adjacent to one another each have an opposite polarization (see Figure 12; Para. 0075),
wherein at least two permanent magnets arranged adjacent to one another are configured in one piece (see Figure 12; Para. 0077),
wherein an unmagnetised region (410 of Figure 10) is provided between each two permanent magnets arranged adjacent to one another,
wherein the unmagnetised region is configured in one piece with the permanent magnets (see Figure 10).
Moore does not explicitly disclose a door drive.
Busch discloses a door drive (abstract; Para. 0027; 1 of Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the axial flux machine of Moore used in a door drive, as taught by Busch, to drive the turnstile in a revolving door [Busch: Para. 0027].
Regarding claim 2, Moore discloses wherein all permanent magnets (404 of Figure 10-12) are configured in one piece with one another and form a multi-pole pair ring magnet (see Figure 12; Para. 0077).
Regarding claim 4, Moore discloses wherein a base surface of the permanent magnets (404 of Figure 10-12) has permanent magnet edges running obliquely to one another (see Figures 10, 12).
Regarding claim 5, Moore discloses wherein the permanent magnet edges have a curvature that increases continuously from an inner side facing the central axis to an outer side facing away from the central axis (see Figures 10, 12; Para. 0060, 0077, magnets may be any shape).
Regarding claim 6, Moore discloses wherein the permanent magnet arrangement (404 of Figure 10-12) is made of a rare earth material (Para. 0057).
Regarding claim 7, Moore discloses wherein the permanent magnet arrangement (404 of Figure 10-12) has a coating to protect the permanent magnets (Para. 0075, 0080).
Regarding claim 8, Moore discloses wherein the permanent magnet arrangement has eight permanent magnets (404 of Figure 10-12).
Regarding claim 9, Moore discloses wherein a ratio of a diameter of the permanent magnet arrangement (404 of Figure 10-12) to a thickness of the permanent magnet arrangement in the axial direction is at least twenty (Para. 0077).
Regarding claim 10, Moore discloses wherein the axial flux machine (350 of Figure 5-12) comprises a coil arrangement (Para. 0057) and a permanent magnet arrangement (404 of Figure 10-12),
wherein the coil arrangement has a plurality of electrical machine coils arranged adjacent to one another in a ring-shaped manner around the central axis (Para. 0057, 0066),
wherein the coil arrangement is arranged axially displaced adjacent to the permanent magnet arrangement (Para. 0055, 0057, 0066).
Regarding claim 12, Moore discloses all of the elements of the current invention mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the door drive is a swing door leaf or sliding door or revolving door drive.
Busch discloses wherein the door drive is a swing door leaf or sliding door or revolving door drive (abstract; Para. 0027; 1 of Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the axial flux machine of Moore used in a revolving door drive, as taught by Busch, to drive the turnstile in a revolving door [Busch: Para. 0027].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 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, 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.
/Charles Reid Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights