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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06 September 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 & 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN 109474097) in view of Lamperth (US Pat.Pub.2023/0032576).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a rotor for an electric axial flux machine, comprising:
a…magnet arrangement having…magnets (magnetic steel pieces) 2 configured to excite a magnetic flux;
a carrier (annular rotor iron core) 1 having two axially opposite end sides (not numbered), wherein at least one of the end sides comprises carrier regions (not numbered, between holes 11), to which the…magnets 2 of the… magnet arrangement are secured; and
a binding arrangement configured to absorb forces acting on the… magnets 2, wherein the binding arrangement comprises a plurality of bindings (sheaths) 3 which extend axially through the carrier 1 and, at the at least one of the end sides of the carrier, extend over the… magnets 2 to fix the… magnets to associated carrier regions and to absorb forces acting axially on the… magnets, and wherein the carrier 1 comprises axial passages (holes) 11 through which the bindings are guided and which wrap the… magnets and the carrier regions (Fig.5).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sun does not teach the magnet arrangement is a “permanent magnet” arrangement, i.e., the magnetic steel pieces 2 do not comprise permanent magnets, per se.
But, Lamperth teaches a rotor for an axial flux electric machine comprising a permanent magnet arrangement having permanent magnets configured to excite a magnetic flux. Lamperth further teaches that instead of permanent magnets, an economically viable alternative is the use soft magnetic steel, i.e., electrical steel or materials with similar magnetic properties (¶[0071]). Lamperth thus teaches the equivalency of the permanent magnets and magnetic steel for the poles of an axial flux electric machine.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to replace Sun’s magnetic steel pieces with permanent magnets since Lamperth teaches permanent magnets and magnetic steel were known equivalents for the poles of axial flux electric machines.
Regarding claim 10, in Sun the axial passages 11 are in the form of radially orientated slots in the carrier 1 so that bending edges of the bindings 3 are orientated parallel with radially orientated side faces of the magnets 2 (i.e., permanent magnets, according to the teaching of Lamperth).
Regarding claim 11, in Sun, the axial passages are in the form of cavities 11, wherein inner walls of the cavities adjacent to the carrier regions are constructed parallel with an axis which extends at a center of the pole so that bending edges 37 of the bindings are orientated parallel with each other and with the axis which extends at the center of the pole (Figs.5&7).
Regarding claim 12, in Sun the ends of the bindings 38 are thermally connected (via arc plate 31) to each other in order to form a respective closed axial wrapping in a connection region (Figs.3-5).
Regarding claim 13, per MPEP 2113 (I), product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113 (II) states that one a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 1. 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection made, burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference. “The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion.” In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). In this case, to the extent the method is given any patentable weight, the combination teaches permanent magnets in the carrier regions are secured to at least one of the end sides of the carrier (Sun, Fig.5) and the ends of the bindings 38 are thermally connected (via arc plate 31) to each other in order to form a respective closed axial wrapping in a connection region (Sun, Figs.3-5).
Regarding claim 14, Lamperth (abstract; Fig.1) teaches axial flux machines including a stator, wherein the stator and the rotor are arranged axially adjacent to each other. Though not shown, this is also inherent to Sun’s disk-type motor.
Regarding claim 15, Lamperth teaches a vehicle comprising an axial flux machine (¶[0002]-¶[0005]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun & Lamperth further in view of Turner et al. (US Pat.Pub.2017/0256999).
Sun & Lamperth teaches the invention except that the permanent magnets are not additionally secured to the carrier regions in a materially engaging manner comprising an adhesive bond.
But, Turner teaches a rotor 10 including a permanent magnet arrangement comprising
permanent magnets 26 secured to carrier regions on rotor carrier (body) 13 in a materially engaging manner comprising an adhesive bond formed by adhesive 28 positioned between the magnet 26 and the body 13 (abstract; Fig.3). The adhesive is adapted to assist in securing the magnet to the body (abstract; ¶[0045]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to adhere the permanent magnets of Sun & Lamperth with to the carrier regions in a materially engaging manner comprising an adhesive bond since Turner teaches an adhesive would have assisted to secure the magnet to the body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 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.
The prior art of record does not further teach “the carrier is in the form of an annular disk and comprises a radially internal inner region which faces a central opening for a rotor shaft, and a radially external outer region, wherein the carrier regions extend radially between the inner region and the outer region, wherein the permanent magnets are in the form of annular segments, wherein the rotor has a plurality of rotor poles which are located adjacent to each other in a circumferential direction and which have alternating polarity, and wherein a segment of the carrier, at least one permanent magnet in the form of the annular segment, two axial passages, and a binding are associated with each rotor pole” (claim 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights