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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 remained pending and claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2020/0079070 A1).
RE claim 1, Zhu teaches a rotor 200 (Figs.2-7) of an electric machine 100, the rotor 200 defining an axial direction and a radial direction, the rotor 200 comprising: a plurality of laminates 202 arranged along the axial direction, the plurality of laminates 202 including a first laminate comprising: a body 250 formed of a first material, the first material being a ferromagnetic material (¶ 45, 118); and a structural element 270 formed integrally with the body 250 of a second material, the second material being a non-ferromagnetic material (¶ 6, 118).
RE claim 2/1, Zhu teaches the body defines a flux barrier region 260, and wherein the structural element 270 is a bridge positioned at an end of the flux barrier region 260 (Fig.5).
RE claim 3/1, Zhu teaches the body 250 defines a flux barrier region 260, and wherein the structural element 270 is a bridge positioned at an end of the flux barrier region or a post extending through an interior of the flux barrier region 260, and wherein the rotor further comprises: a permanent magnet 262 extending through the flux barrier region 260 (Fig.5).
RE claim 4/3, Zhu teaches the permanent magnet 262 is a first permanent magnet 262, wherein the rotor further comprises: a second permanent magnet 262 extending through the flux barrier region 260, wherein the structural element 270 is the post extending through the interior of the flux barrier region 260 between the first 262 and second permanent magnets 262 (Fig.5).
RE claim 5/1, Zhu teaches the body 250 defines a flux barrier region 260, and wherein the structural element 270 is a first structural element 270, wherein the rotor further comprises: a second structural element 272 formed integrally with the body of the second material, the first structural element 270 being a first bridge 270 positioned at a first end of the flux barrier region 260, and the second structural element 272 being a second bridge 272 positioned at a second end of the flux barrier region 260 (Fig.5).
RE claim 7/1, Zhu teaches the first material defines a first yield strength, wherein the second material defines a second yield strength, and wherein the second yield strength is greater than the first yield strength (¶ 51).
RE claim 13/1, Zhu teaches the electric machine is an interior permanent magnet electric machine (Fig.5).
RE claim 16/1, Zhu teaches the electric machine is a closed rotor slot induction electric machine (see ¶ 45 for magnetic induction, see Fig.5 for magnet slots are closed by bridge 272).
Claims 1, 6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atkinson et al. (US 2013/0221789 A1).
RE claim 1, Atkinson teaches a rotor (Fig.11 and ¶ 83) of an electric machine, the rotor defining an axial direction and a radial direction (Fig.11), the rotor comprising: a plurality of laminates 1123 (¶ 85) arranged along the axial direction (Fig.11), the plurality of laminates including a first laminate comprising: a body formed of a first material, the first material being a ferromagnetic material (steel, see ¶ 84, 85); and a structural element 1103 formed integrally with the body of a second material, the second material being a non-ferromagnetic material (e.g.: magnesium or glass fibres, see ¶ 84).
RE claim 6/1, Atkinson teaches the structural element 1103 is a hub 1103 of the first laminate 1123 (Fig.11).
RE claim 12/1, Atkinson teaches the electric machine is a synchronous reluctance electric machine (¶ 71).
RE claim 13/1, Atkinson teaches the electric machine is an interior permanent magnet electric machine (Fig.11).
RE claim 14/1, Atkinson teaches the structural element 1103 is a hub 1103 (Fig.11).
RE claim 15/1, Atkinson teaches the electric machine is a spoke permanent magnet electric machine (Fig.11).
Claims 1-4, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leonardi et al. (US 2020/0395801 A1).
RE claim 1, Leonardi teaches a rotor 124 of an electric machine 100 (Figs.1-3, 7-9), the rotor defining an axial direction and a radial direction (Fig.1), the rotor comprising: a plurality of laminates 238 arranged along the axial direction 270, the plurality of laminates 238 including a first laminate comprising: a body formed of a first material (606, 706, 806, see Figs.7-9), the first material being a ferromagnetic material (steel, ferrous alloy, see ¶ 30 and 42); and a structural element (712, 812, 912) formed integrally with the body of a second material, the second material being a non-ferromagnetic material (see ¶ 46 for clip 712 made of non-magnetic material).
RE claim 2/1, Leonardi teaches the body defines a flux barrier region (714, see Fig.7), and wherein the structural element 712 is a bridge positioned at an end of the flux barrier region 714 (Fig.7).
RE claim 3/1, Leonardi teaches the body defines a flux barrier region, and wherein the structural element 712 is a bridge positioned at an end of the flux barrier region 714 or a post extending through an interior of the flux barrier region, and wherein the rotor further comprises: a permanent magnet 244 extending through the flux barrier region 714 (Figs.7, 9).
RE claim 4/3, Leonardi teaches the permanent magnet 244 is a first permanent 244 magnet, wherein the rotor further comprises: a second permanent magnet 244 extending through the flux barrier region 914, wherein the structural element 912 is the post extending through the interior of the flux barrier region 914 between the first and second permanent magnets 244 (Fig.9).
RE claim 10/1, Leonardi teaches the body defines a flux barrier region 614 (Figs.7-9), and wherein the first laminate further comprises a structural filler (710, 810) formed integrally with the body and positioned in the flux barrier region (Figs.7-9), wherein the structural filler 710 is formed of a non-ferromagnetic material (resin, see ¶ 47) different than the second material (non-magnetic metal, see claim 11).
RE claim 13/1, Leonardi teaches the electric machine is an interior permanent magnet electric machine (Figs.2, 7-9).
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.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2020/0079070 A1).
RE claim 8/1, Zhu has been discussed above. In embodiment of Fig.5, Zhu does not teach an outer ring formed of a third material, wherein the third material is a ferromagnetic material different than first material.
However, in embodiment of Fig.8, Zhu teaches an outer ring 316 formed of a third material, wherein the third material is a ferromagnetic material different than first material (¶ 66-68), doing so can lead to local loss reduction (¶ 67).
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 Zhu’s embodiment of Fig.5 by having an outer ring formed of a third material, wherein the third material is a ferromagnetic material different than first material, as taught by Zu’s embodiment of Fig.8, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
RE claim 9/8, Zhu has been discussed above. Zhu further teaches the first material defines a first yield strength, wherein the third material defines a third yield strength. Zhu does not teach the third yield strength is greater than the first yield strength.
However, Zhu suggests that different regions of rotor can be optimized to have different yield strength (¶ 51, 49, 63-65). The optimization of materials can be utilized to achieve desired overall system attributes, which depend on the specific application and implementation. These attributes may include, but are not limited to cost, strength, durability, life cycle cost, marketability, appearance, packaging, size, serviceability, weight, manufacturability, ease of assembly, etc (¶ 131).
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 Zhu by having the first material defines a first yield strength, wherein the third material defines a third yield strength. Zhu does not teach the third yield strength is greater than the first yield strength, as suggested by Zhu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi in view of Zhu et al. (US 2020/0079070 A1).
RE claim 11/10, Leonardi has been discussed above. Leonardi does not teach the non-ferromagnetic material of the structural filler defines a yield strength less than a second yield strength of the second material.
However, Zhu suggests that different regions of rotor can be optimized to have different yield strength (¶ 51, 49, 63-65). The optimization of materials can be utilized to achieve desired overall system attributes, which depend on the specific application and implementation. These attributes may include, but are not limited to cost, strength, durability, life cycle cost, marketability, appearance, packaging, size, serviceability, weight, manufacturability, ease of assembly, etc (¶ 131).
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 Leonardi by having the non-ferromagnetic material of the structural filler defines a yield strength less than a second yield strength of the second material, as suggested by Zhu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights