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
Claims 1-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/19/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group II in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the non-elected independent claim has been amended. This is not found persuasive because the serious search burden remains as described in the requirement for restriction, even though the independent process claim has been amended. However, in the event of an allowable product claim, the process claims may be eligible for rejoinder. See MPEP 821.04(b).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “adhering feature” 906 in claims 13 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. (See specification, para [0050])
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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.
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 6-7, 11, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BÖTTGER (DE 102016225105; previously cited, translation attached hereto).
Regarding claim 6, BÖTTGER discloses a rotor assembly 1, comprising: a rotor core 2 including a plurality of laminations 3, the rotor core 2 having a cylindrical body with a rotor bore (Fig. 1), the cylindrical body having a first face at a first longitudinal end and a second face at a second longitudinal end (Fig. 1); a slot 5 through the cylindrical body of the rotor core 2, the slot 5 extending along a longitudinal axis of the rotor core 2 from the first longitudinal end to the second longitudinal end (Fig. 1); a magnet 6 disposed in the slot 5 with an end portion of the magnet 6 located at the first face of the first longitudinal end (Fig. 3); and a polymer end ring 20 at the first longitudinal end, wherein the polymer end ring 20 covers the end portion of the magnet 6 at the first face and extends inside the slot 5 to form to form a composite cage integrated inside the rotor core 2 (Fig. 4 and para [0083]).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
737
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
776
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, BÖTTGER discloses the rotor assembly of claim 6, wherein the end portion of the magnet 6 extends outside of the slot 5 at the first face (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, BÖTTGER discloses the rotor assembly of claim 6, wherein the composite cage adheres to the rotor core 2 at an inner surface of the slot 5 (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, BÖTTGER discloses the rotor assembly of claim 6, wherein the end portion of the magnet 6 includes an adhering feature and the polymer end ring 20 encapsulates the adhering feature to adhere the end portion of the magnet 6 to the polymer end ring 20 (para [0024] the disclosed chamfer is equivalent to the described ‘notch’ adhering feature).
Regarding claim 14, BÖTTGER discloses a vehicle (para [0009]), comprising: a motor including a stator having a stator bore (para [0075]); a rotor assembly 1 disposed within the stator bore and configured to rotate within the stator (para [0075]), the rotor assembly 1 including: a rotor core 2 including a plurality of laminations 3, the rotor core 2 having a cylindrical body with a rotor bore, the cylindrical body having a first face at a first longitudinal end and a second face at a second longitudinal end; a slot 5 through the cylindrical body of the rotor core 2, the slot 5 extending along a longitudinal axis of the rotor core 2 from the first longitudinal end to the second longitudinal end (Fig. 1); a magnet 6 disposed in the slot 5 with an end portion of the magnet 6 located at the first face of the first longitudinal end (Fig. 3); and a polymer end ring 20 at the first longitudinal end, wherein the polymer end ring 20 covers the end portion of the magnet 6 at the first face and extends inside the slot 5 to form a composite cage integrated inside the rotor core 2 (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, BÖTTGER discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the end portion of the magnet 6 extends outside of the slot 5 at the first face (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, BÖTTGER discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the end portion of the magnet 6 includes an adhering feature and the polymer end ring 20 encapsulates the adhering feature to adhere the end portion of the magnet 6 to the polymer end ring 20 (para [0024] the disclosed chamfer is equivalent to the described ‘notch’ adhering feature).
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 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BÖTTGER in view of HAO (US 20160028279; previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, BÖTTGER discloses the rotor assembly of claim 6, wherein the slot 5 further includes a first slot 5 and a second slot 5 and the magnet 6 includes a first magnet 6 disposed in the first slot 5 and a second magnet 6 disposed in the second slot 5.
However, BÖTTGER does not disclose the first magnet and the second magnet are at least one of: (i) made of a first material and a second material, respectively; (ii) a Ferrite magnet and a Neodymium magnet, respectively; and (iii) a ground magnet and an unground magnet, respectively.
HAO teaches a rotor assembly with a first magnet and a second magnet are at least one of: (i) made of a first material and a second material, respectively; (ii) a Ferrite magnet and a Neodymium magnet, respectively.
It 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 to provide the vehicle of BÖTTGER with the first magnet and the second magnet are at least one of: (i) made of a first material and a second material, respectively; (ii) a Ferrite magnet and a Neodymium magnet, respectively, similar to HAO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to reduce the cost of constructing the rotor while increasing torque and rotational speed, as taught by HAO (para [0003]-[0004])
Regarding claim 16, BÖTTGER discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the slot 5 further includes a first slot 5 and a second slot 5 and the magnet 6 includes a first magnet 6 disposed in the first slot 5 and a second magnet 6 disposed in the second slot 5.
However, BÖTTGER does not disclose the first magnet and the second magnet are at least one of: (i) made of a first material and a second material, respectively; (ii) a Ferrite magnet and a Neodymium magnet, respectively; and (iii) a ground magnet and an unground magnet, respectively.
HAO teaches a vehicle with a rotor assembly with a first magnet and a second magnet are at least one of: (i) made of a first material and a second material, respectively; (ii) a Ferrite magnet and a Neodymium magnet, respectively.
It 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 to provide the vehicle of BÖTTGER with the first magnet and the second magnet are at least one of: (i) made of a first material and a second material, respectively; (ii) a Ferrite magnet and a Neodymium magnet, respectively, similar to HAO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to reduce the cost of constructing the rotor while increasing torque and rotational speed, as taught by HAO (para [0003]-[0004])
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BÖTTGER in view of SCHMITT (US 20250132623)
Regarding claim 9, BÖTTGER discloses the rotor assembly of claim 6.
However, BÖTTGER does not disclose the composite cage further comprises a hollow structure that allows passage of a cooling fluid through the rotor core.
SCHMITT discloses a rotor assembly with a composite cage 152 further comprising a hollow structure 130 that allows passage of a cooling fluid 156 through a rotor core 120 (para [0021]).
It 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 to provide the rotor assembly of BÖTTGER with the composite cage further comprises a hollow structure that allows passage of a cooling fluid through the rotor core, similar to SCHMITT.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to form passages close to the magnets to have the cooling fluid absorb heat from the magnets, which are the predominant heat generator in the rotor assembly, as taught by SCHMITT (para [0015])
Regarding claim 17, BÖTTGER discloses the vehicle of claim 14.
However, BÖTTGER does not disclose the composite cage further comprises a hollow structure that allows passage of a cooling fluid through the rotor core.
SCHMITT discloses a rotor assembly with a composite cage 152 further comprising a hollow structure 130 that allows passage of a cooling fluid 156 through a rotor core 120 (para [0021]).
It 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 to provide the rotor assembly of BÖTTGER with the composite cage further comprises a hollow structure that allows passage of a cooling fluid through the rotor core, similar to SCHMITT.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to form passages close to the magnets to have the cooling fluid absorb heat from the magnets, which are the predominant heat generator in the rotor assembly, as taught by SCHMITT (para [0015])
Claims 10, 12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BÖTTGER in view of ISHIHARA (US 20240113604)
Regarding claim 10, BÖTTGER discloses the rotor assembly of claim 6.
However, BÖTTGER does not disclose the composite cage is filled with at least a glass fiber.
ISHIHARA teaches a rotor assembly with a composite cage is filled with at least a glass fiber (para [0054]).
It 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 to provide the rotor assembly of BÖTTGER with the composite cage is filled with at least a glass fiber, similar to ISHIHARA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to reinforce the polymeric material to better withstand centrifugal forces, as taught by ISHIHARA (para [0009]).
Regarding claim 18, BÖTTGER discloses the vehicle of claim 14 and the composite cage adheres to the rotor core 2 at an inner surface of the slot 5 (Fig. 4).
However, BÖTTGER does not disclose at least one of: (i) the composite cage is filled with at least a glass fiber.
ISHIHARA teaches a rotor assembly with a composite cage is filled with at least a glass fiber (para [0054]).
It 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 to provide the rotor assembly of BÖTTGER with the composite cage is filled with at least a glass fiber, similar to ISHIHARA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to reinforce the polymeric material to better withstand centrifugal forces, as taught by ISHIHARA (para [0009]).
Regarding claim 12, BÖTTGER discloses the rotor assembly of claim 6.
However, BÖTTGER does not disclose the polymer end ring 20 is reinforced by a metallic rim (para [0054]).
ISHIHARA teaches a rotor assembly with a polymer end ring reinforced by a metallic rim.
It 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 to provide the rotor assembly of BÖTTGER with the composite cage is filled with at least a glass fiber, similar to ISHIHARA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to reinforce the polymeric material to better withstand centrifugal forces, as taught by ISHIHARA (para [0009]).
Regarding claim 19, BÖTTGER discloses the vehicle of claim 14.
However, BÖTTGER does not disclose the polymer end ring 20 is reinforced by a metallic rim.
ISHIHARA teaches a rotor assembly with a polymer end ring reinforced by a metallic rim (para [0054]).
It 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 to provide the rotor assembly of BÖTTGER with the composite cage is filled with at least a glass fiber, similar to ISHIHARA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to reinforce the polymeric material to better withstand centrifugal forces, as taught by ISHIHARA (para [0009]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6822359-B2 Joho discloses coolant channels, adhesive, and metal reinforcement; US-20100171383-A1 Petrov discloses coolant channels, adhesive, and metal and glass reinforcement; US-20250047154-A1 WOLF discloses coolant channels, metal reinforcement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN STEFANON whose telephone number is (703)756-4648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays 8AM - 5PM EDT.
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, Oluseye 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.
/JUSTIN STEFANON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights