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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus” of claims 13-20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
Rm as seen in FIG. 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 13, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7 lines 7-8 the term “LCM(12p, 14p)” is defined but it does not appear in the formula recited.
In claim 13 line 2 the phrase “comprises the outer rotor motor” should instead be “comprises an outer rotor motor” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 13 line 2 the phrase “wherein the outer rotor motor, comprising” should instead be “wherein the outer rotor motor comprises.”
In claim 19 lines 7-8 the term “LCM(12p, 14p)” is defined but it does not appear in the formula recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 19-20 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.
Claims 4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 19-20 contain the phrase “LCM(12p, 14p) is a minimum keyway common multiple.” It is unclear as to what this phrase means. It appears that this phrase was meant to mean a least common multiple between the rotor elements and stator teeth. For examination purposes, this claim limitation will be taken to mean “a least common multiple between 12p and 14p.”
Claims 7 and 19 contain the quantity “Mag” used in a formula. The term “Mag” is not explicitly defined. For examination purposes, Mag will be taken to mean a width of the permanent magnet rotor element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent No. 110611380 to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an outer rotor motor (FIG. 1, 1), comprising:
a rotor assembly (FIG. 1, 20) comprising a plurality of permanent magnet rotor elements (FIG. 2, 22);
a stator assembly (FIG. 1, 10), the stator assembly comprising a stator yoke (FIG. 1, 11) and a plurality of stator teeth (FIG. 1, 12) disposed in a circumferential direction of the stator yoke; and
an air gap (FIG. 2, between 22 and 10); the air gap being configured to separate the rotor assembly and the stator assembly with a gap; wherein: in an air gap between an outer arc surface of the stator tooth facing the air gap (FIG. 3, 13) and an inner arc surface of the permanent magnet rotor element facing the air gap (FIG. 2, 22), a gap of a middle section of the air gap (FIG. 3, 14) is less than gaps of two ends of the air gap (FIG. 3; 15, 16).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 1, wherein the outer arc surface of the stator tooth has a first arc segment (FIG. 3, 15), a second arc segment (FIG. 3, 14), and a third arc segment (FIG. 3, 16) that are connected in sequence and a center of the first arc segment, a center of the second arc segment, and a center of the third arc segment are not coincident (FIG. 3; 14, 15, 16).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 2, wherein the first arc segment and the third arc segment are symmetrically disposed at both ends of the second arc segment (FIG. 3; 15, 16; Paragraph [0070]); and a radius of curvature of the second arc segment is greater than a radius of curvature of the first arc segment and that of the third arc segment (FIG. 3; 15, 16; Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 1, wherein the rotor assembly further comprises a rotor magnet yoke (FIG. 2, 21), an outer edge of the permanent magnet rotor element is connected to the rotor magnet yoke (Paragraph [0078]) and a center of the outer edge of the permanent magnet rotor element does not coincide with a center of an inner edge of the permanent magnet rotor element (FIG. 2, 22).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 2, wherein a distance between the second arc segment and an inner edge of the permanent magnet rotor element is less than a distance between each of the first arc segment and the third arc segment and the inner edge of the permanent magnet rotor element (Paragraph [0072]; FIG. 3, distance between 14 and magnet is less than distance between 15 or 16 and magnet).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 1, wherein the rotor assembly further comprises a rotor magnet yoke (FIG. 2, 21) and the rotor magnet yoke is a soft magnetic material (Paragraph [0076]).
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 4, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0052061 to Li et al. (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of stator teeth are disposed at equal intervals in the circumferential direction of the stator yoke to form a plurality of stator slots (Paragraph [0068]; [0071]), the outer rotor motor further comprising a stator winding (Paragraph [0071]), the stator winding being disposed around the stator teeth and running through the stator slots.
Wang does not teach 14p permanent magnet rotor elements being disposed and 12p stator teeth being disposed; and a slot width bso of each stator slot meeting 0.77*Dso*sin(7*p*π/(4*LCM(12p,14p)) ≤ bso ≤ 0.91*Dso*sin(7*p*π/(4*LCM(12p,14p)), wherein Dso is a diameter of the second arc segment and LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, Li teaches an outer rotor motor with 14 permanent magnet rotor elements (FIG. 6, 24) and 12 stator teeth (FIG. 6, 46) being disposed.
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 outer rotor motor of Wang with the teachings of Li to modify the pole counts of the stator and rotor to better suit the designated operating parameters of the motor.
Wang in view of Li does not teach a slot width bso of each stator slot meeting 0.77*Dso*sin(7*p*π/(4*LCM(12p,14p)) ≤ bso ≤ 0.91*Dso*sin(7*p*π/(4*LCM(12p,14p)), wherein Dso is a diameter of the second arc segment and LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, 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 outer rotor motor of Wang in view of Li to modify the slot width bso to fulfill the listed inequality as a matter of design choice to maximize the operating performance of the motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 2, wherein the rotor assembly further comprises a rotor magnet yoke (FIG. 2, 21).
Wang does not teach 14p permanent magnet rotor elements being disposed, 12p stator teeth being disposed, the plurality of permanent magnet rotor elements being disposed at equal intervals in an inner circumferential direction of the rotor magnet yoke and a width of the permanent magnet rotor element meeting 0.81*Dso*π/(14p)≤ Mag ≤ 0.89*Dso*π/(14p).
However, Li teaches an outer rotor motor with 14 permanent magnet rotor elements (FIG. 6, 24) and 12 stator teeth (FIG. 6, 46) being disposed.
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 outer rotor motor of Wang with the teachings of Li to modify the pole counts of the stator and rotor to better suit the designated operating parameters of the motor.
Wang in view of Li does not teach a width of the permanent magnet rotor element meeting 0.81*Dso*π/(14p)≤ Mag ≤ 0.89*Dso*π/(14p).
However, 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 outer rotor motor of Wang in view of Li to modify the permanent magnet rotor element width Mag to fulfill the listed inequality as a matter of design choice to maximize the operating performance of the motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 2.
Wang does not teach 14p permanent magnet rotor elements being disposed, 12p stator teeth being disposed and an arc angle of the second arc segment being α1 and 0 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.86*LCM(12p,14p)*π/180, wherein LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, Li teaches an outer rotor motor with 14 permanent magnet rotor elements (FIG. 6, 24) and 12 stator teeth (FIG. 6, 46) being disposed.
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 outer rotor motor of Wang with the teachings of Li to modify the pole counts of the stator and rotor to better suit the designated operating parameters of the motor.
Wang in view of Li does not teach an arc angle of the second arc segment being α1 and 0 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.86*LCM(12p,14p)*π/180, wherein LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, 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 outer rotor motor of Wang in view of Li to modify the arc angle α1 to fulfill the listed inequality as a matter of design choice to maximize the operating performance of the motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 2.
Wang does not teach 14p permanent magnet rotor elements being disposed, 12p stator teeth being disposed, an air gap formed between the second arc segment and an inner edge of the permanent magnet rotor element is δmin, 0.53 ≤ δmin*LCM(12p,14p)/Dso ≤ 1.06, Dso is a diameter of the second arc segment and LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, Li teaches an outer rotor motor with 14 permanent magnet rotor elements (FIG. 6, 24) and 12 stator teeth (FIG. 6, 46) being disposed.
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 outer rotor motor of Wang with the teachings of Li to modify the pole counts of the stator and rotor to better suit the designated operating parameters of the motor.
Wang in view of Li does not teach an air gap formed between the second arc segment and an inner edge of the permanent magnet rotor element is δmin, 0.53 ≤ δmin*LCM(12p,14p)/Dso ≤ 1.06, Dso is a diameter of the second arc segment and LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, 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 outer rotor motor of Wang in view of Li to modify the air gap δmin to fulfill the listed inequality as a matter of design choice to maximize the operating performance of the motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,753,991 to Couture et al. (hereinafter Couture).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 5, the rotor assembly further comprising a rotating shaft (FIG. 2, 231) and the outer edge being concentric with the rotating shaft (FIG. 2; 21, 22).
Wang does not teach a radius of the outer edge of the permanent magnet rotor element being equal to a radius of the inner edge of the permanent magnet rotor element.
However, Couture teaches a radius of an outer edge (FIG. 1, 9) of a permanent magnet rotor element (FIG. 1, 3) being equal to a radius of an inner edge (FIG. 1, 10) of the permanent magnet rotor element.
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 outer rotor motor of Wang with the teachings of Couture to have an outer edge of the permanent magnet rotor element being equal in radius to an inner edge to reduce a cogging torque (Column 11 lines 1-13).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the outer rotor motor according to claim 2, wherein an arc angle of the second arc segment is α1 (FIG. 4, arc from center to 13), the first arc segment and the third arc segment are symmetrically disposed at two ends of the second arc segment (FIG. 3; 15, 16; Paragraph [0070]).
Wang does not teach a distance between the center of the second arc segment and the center of the third arc segment being Ra, wherein 0 < Ra < 2+α1.
However, 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 outer rotor motor of Wang to modify the arc segment to fulfill the listed inequality as a matter of design choice to maximize the operating performance of the motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. 107508442 to He et al. (hereinafter He) in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 13, He teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus Paragraph [0002]), wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus comprises an outer rotor motor (Paragraph [0002]), wherein the outer rotor motor comprises:
a rotor assembly (FIG. 2, 1), the rotor assembly comprising a plurality of permanent magnet rotor elements (FIG. 2, 11);
a stator assembly (FIG. 2, 34), the stator assembly comprising a stator yoke (FIG. 2, 34) and a plurality of stator teeth (FIG. 3, 34) disposed in a circumferential direction of the stator yoke; and
an air gap (FIG. 3, between 34 and 11); the air gap being configured to separate the rotor assembly and the stator assembly with a gap.
He does not teach an inner arc surface of the permanent magnet rotor element facing the air gap and a gap of a middle section of the air gap being less than gaps of two ends of the air gap.
However, Wang teaches an outer rotor motor with a gap of a middle section of an air gap (Fig. 3, 14) being less than gaps of two ends of the air gap (FIG. 3; 15, 16).
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 unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus of He with the air gap configuration of Wang as it reduces vibration of the motor (Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 14, He in view of Wang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 13, wherein Wang further teaches the outer arc surface of the stator tooth having a first arc segment (FIG. 3, 15), a second arc segment (FIG. 3, 14), and a third arc segment (FIG. 3, 16) that are connected in sequence and a center of the first arc segment, a center of the second arc segment, and a center of the third arc segment are not coincident (FIG. 3; 14, 15, 16).
Regarding claim 15, He in view of Wang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus according to claim 14, wherein Wang further teaches the first arc segment and the third arc segment being symmetrically disposed at both ends of the second arc segment (FIG. 3; 15, 16; Paragraph [0070]); and a radius of curvature of the second arc segment being greater than a radius of curvature of the first arc segment and that of the third arc segment (FIG. 3; 15, 16; Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 17, He in view of Wang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus according to claim 13, wherein Wang further teaches the rotor assembly further comprising a rotor magnet yoke (FIG. 2, 21), an outer edge of the permanent magnet rotor element being connected to the rotor magnet yoke (Paragraph [0078]) and a center of the outer edge of the permanent magnet rotor element does not coincide with a center of an inner edge of the permanent magnet rotor element (FIG. 2, 22).
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Wang and in further view of Li.
Regarding claim 16, He in view of Wang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus according to claim 14, wherein Wang further teaches the plurality of stator teeth are disposed at equal intervals in the circumferential direction of the stator yoke to form a plurality of stator slots (Paragraph [0068]; [0071]), the outer rotor motor further comprising a stator winding (Paragraph [0071]), the stator winding being disposed around the stator teeth and running through the stator slots.
He in view of Wang does not teach 14p permanent magnet rotor elements being disposed and 12p stator teeth being disposed; and a slot width bso of each stator slot meeting 0.77*Dso*sin(7*p*π/(4*LCM(12p,14p)) ≤ bso ≤ 0.91*Dso*sin(7*p*π/(4*LCM(12p,14p)), wherein Dso is a diameter of the second arc segment and LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, Li teaches an outer rotor motor with 14 permanent magnet rotor elements (FIG. 6, 24) and 12 stator teeth (FIG. 6, 46) being disposed.
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 unmanned aerial vehicle of He in view of Wang with the teachings of Li to modify the pole counts of the stator and rotor to better suit the designated operating parameters of the motor.
He in view of Wang and Li does not teach a slot width bso of each stator slot meeting 0.77*Dso*sin(7*p*π/(4*LCM(12p,14p)) ≤ bso ≤ 0.91*Dso*sin(7*p*π/(4*LCM(12p,14p)), wherein Dso is a diameter of the second arc segment and LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, 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 unmanned aerial vehicle of He in view of Wang and Li to modify the slot width bso to fulfill the listed inequality as a matter of design choice to maximize the operating performance of the motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 19, He in view of Wang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus according to claim 14, wherein Wang further teaches the rotor assembly further comprising a rotor magnet yoke (FIG. 2, 21).
He in view of Wang does not teach 14p permanent magnet rotor elements being disposed, 12p stator teeth being disposed, the plurality of permanent magnet rotor elements being disposed at equal intervals in an inner circumferential direction of the rotor magnet yoke and a width of the permanent magnet rotor element meeting 0.81*Dso*π/(14p)≤ Mag ≤ 0.89*Dso*π/(14p).
However, Li teaches an outer rotor motor with 14 permanent magnet rotor elements (FIG. 6, 24) and 12 stator teeth (FIG. 6, 46) being disposed.
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 unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus of He in view of Wang with the teachings of Li to modify the pole counts of the stator and rotor to better suit the designated operating parameters of the motor.
He in view of Wang and Li does not teach a width of the permanent magnet rotor element meeting 0.81*Dso*π/(14p)≤ Mag ≤ 0.89*Dso*π/(14p).
However, 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 unmanned aerial vehicle of He in view of Wang and Li to modify the permanent magnet rotor element width Mag to fulfill the listed inequality as a matter of design choice to maximize the operating performance of the motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 20, He in view of Wang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus according to claim 14.
He in view of Wang does not teach 14p permanent magnet rotor elements being disposed, 12p stator teeth being disposed and an arc angle of the second arc segment being α1 and 0 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.86*LCM(12p,14p)*π/180, wherein LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, Li teaches an outer rotor motor with 14 permanent magnet rotor elements (FIG. 6, 24) and 12 stator teeth (FIG. 6, 46) being disposed.
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 unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus of He in view of Wang with the teachings of Li to modify the pole counts of the stator and rotor to better suit the designated operating parameters of the motor.
He in view of Wang and Li does not teach an arc angle of the second arc segment being α1 and 0 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.86*LCM(12p,14p)*π/180, wherein LCM(12p,14p) is a least common multiple.
However, 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 unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus of He in view of Wang and Li to modify the arc angle α1 to fulfill the listed inequality as a matter of design choice to maximize the operating performance of the motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Wang and in further view of Couture.
Regarding claim 18, He in view of Wang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus according to claim 13, wherein Wang further teaches a rotating shaft (FIG. 2, 231) and the outer edge being concentric with the rotating shaft (FIG. 2; 21, 22).
He in view of Wang does not teach a radius of the outer edge of the permanent magnet rotor element being equal to a radius of the inner edge of the permanent magnet rotor element.
However, Couture teaches a radius of an outer edge (FIG. 1, 9) of a permanent magnet rotor element (FIG. 1, 3) being equal to a radius of an inner edge (FIG. 1, 10) of the permanent magnet rotor element.
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 unmanned aerial vehicle apparatus of He in view of Wang with the teachings of Couture to have an outer edge of the permanent magnet rotor element being equal in radius to an inner edge to reduce a cogging torque (Column 11 lines 1-13).
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
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights