DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/835,732, filed on 4 August, 2024, were presented for examination, and are currently pending in the application.
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 4 August, 2024, was filed before the mailing date of this Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 wire packets must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The wire packets are simply absent from the drawings and from any corresponding detailed description of the drawings.
Therefore, the pole pairs of magnetic field for any phase winding must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Although pole pairs appear to be shown in figs. 4a and 4b, the Examiner cannot tell from the drawing(s) and/or description whether (for instance, using the U phase) a “pole pair” is a single U and U’ pairing, or a pairing of a single U and the single U next to it, or all of the U and U’ windings, or something else.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “magnetic steel” in lines 5-6 instead of “magnet” or “permanent magnet”. See related objections to the specification below, as the issue is identical. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
Pages 1 and 6 of the written description refer to the rotor as generally involving permanent magnets. The Examiner believes that this is enough evidence to establish that the elements labeled “13” in the drawings are permanent magnets. This is further evidenced by the recitation in page 10 that says “magnetic steels (magnets) 13”.
However, in most instances wherein the permanent magnets are explicitly mentioned in the specification, they are referred to as “magnetic steel” or “magnetic steels” (including the abstract, see objection above). The Examiner believes there are approximately 26 instances (without counting the one in the abstract and more in the claims).
Permanent magnets are not steel. The only evidence of the term “magnetic steel” being used in the electric motor arts to describe permanent magnets is in a few thousand machine translations from Chinese patents/applications.
In all the relevant English-language documents that the Examiner can find, the term “magnetic steel” refers mainly to the core plates/laminations, and never to the permanent magnets of a rotor, with the exception of other applications with Chinese priority documents.
Thus, the Examiner has more than sufficient evidence to believe that the misuse of the term “magnetic steel” originated from a translation from Chinese to English. Therefore, the translation must be completed by an amendment that changes every instance of “magnetic steel” in the instant application (abstract, written description, and claims) to “permanent magnet”, “magnet”, or an equivalent thereof.
Although MPEP 2173.05(a)(III) allows Applicant to be their own lexicographer, there is one very important reason, outside the obvious need to use proper nomenclature in a technical document, that the term “magnetic steel(s)” must be changed: any functional device that is made according to the teachings of the instant application will likely have a (stator or rotor) core made of actual magnetic steel. Therefore any designation in the application that the rotor’s perimeter (the rotor itself made of a material probably consisting of magnetic steel or another ferrous material) having thereon “magnetic steels”, would lead a reader of ordinary skill in the art to completely wrong conclusions about what the rotor is and how it would function.
The disclosure is objected to because of the misuse of “magnetic steel” for “permanent magnet” as outlined above, and also for the following informality:
In the first line of text of page 6, the recitation “the harmonic” appears as “tharmonic” due to a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 use the term “magnetic steel(s)” where they should recite “magnet(s)” or “permanent magnet(s)” (in lines 12 and 14 of claim 1 and in line 3 of claim 2). This objection is a continuation of the objection to the specification on the same grounds. The claims should be amended to have the same terminology for this term as the amended/substitute specification uses.
The Examiner will interpret the word “magnetic steel” as “permanent magnet” for examining the claims on the merits even if/when a reference’s translation also calls permanent magnets “magnetic steels”.
The Examiner hopes that this issue has been made clear in the preceding discussion. If not, Applicant’s representative is invited to call the Examiner at the number below to discuss it in more detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With respect to claim 1, line 7 of the claim recites the limitation “phase winding is supplied with a constant direct current…” Because the Examiner is not familiar with any instances of phase windings operating on direct current (he believes that the word “phase” exclusively requires alternating current), the specification would be required to explain why and how this would work in practice. The only support in the specification for the direct current is a single, unexplained and unsubstantiated mention in lines 15-16 of page 2 that is basically just the same line that is used in the claim. It is further noted that, to the Examiner’s understanding, in a motor with permanent magnets on the rotor, if the stator windings were applied with constant direct current, the motor would not only not drive anything, it would seize/brake the rotor and waste a lot of energy. In this case, the stated utility of the application would be unfulfilled (no rejection is being made under 35 U.S.C. 101 because this limitation must be removed via amendment and the Examiner will treat the phase windings as ordinary phase windings known elsewhere in the art – in other words, the phase windings have a well-established utility). For examination on the merits, the Examiner must overlook this limitation entirely, because to interpret it as alternating current, which would be appropriate and the only real option available to him, is the opposite of the direct current that is claimed.
Still referring to claim 1, line 8 recites the limitation “number of pole pairs of magnetic field of any phase winding” which is not supported by the specification in such a way that a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art would be able to understand exactly what the pole pairs are to such an extent that he/she could quantify them (i.e. Pm) and further such that they fit into the formula invoked later in the claim (Pr = Z + Pm). The Examiner, and it seems probably anyone of skill in the motor arts, understands what a pole pair is. But the Examiner cannot understand or pin down completely, using only the specification as filed and/or well-established art terminology, how to quantify pole pairs “for any phase winding”.
In one interpretation it seems that if Pm (the number of pole pairs) is 1, then a single phase has one (using the U phase) positive U pole [U] and one negative U pole [U’], and likewise for Pm = 2, Pm = 4, etc. But how does “any phase winding” have 2 pairs, or 4 pairs, etc.? Although there may be a good answer to this question, the Examiner cannot find evidence of it in the specification. Pole pairs are not labeled in the drawings in such a way as to correspond to reference numerals or other identifiers in the written description that provide a basis for counting the pole pairs and feeding the resulting quantity into the Pr = Z + Pm equation so important to the last clause of the claim.
It is one thing for a reader to review the specification several times in an attempt to come to a vague notion of how this quantity, and others like “k”, can be counted and compared to each other for conformance to the two equations in the last clause of the claim, as the Examiner has done. It is another thing entirely to posit that the specification supports these elements, and that it further provides a real way to quantify them, such that a potentially infringing device can be said to read or not read on the claim. The specification does not support these elements such that they can be quantified and compared to another device or used to make a device in such a way that the maker actually knows that they are making it in or out of conformance with the claimed relationships.
Still referring to claim 1, line 10 recites the limitation “wire packets” which is not supported by the specification in such a way that a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art would be able to understand exactly what the wire packets are to an extent that he/she could quantify them (i.e. k) and further such that they fit into the formula invoked later in the claim (Z = m x k).
The Examiner cannot figure out from the specification what a “wire packet” is and he cannot find this terminology used consistently in other publications. On page 5 of the specification Applicant provides synonyms (“wire package, wire pack, coil packet”) but the Examiner can find no consistent use of these terms in the art. After all, it seems that a winding inherently already is a wire package or coil packet. He guesses that it might mean a “row” or “layer” of winding in a single slot, such that for a stator with two layers/rows of winding in each slot “k” would be 2, but since it is not shown or described in the specification, this “guess” cannot be the basis for allowance of a claim which uses the quantity (k) of said wire packets as the foundation of a patent claim. Another guess can be made by using figs. 4a and 4b, wherein perhaps k = 4 because there are four of each phase (U, V, W, U’, V’, W’), but this seems to be a way of counting the pole pairs too (Pm – see rejection on previous page), and it can’t be both, at least from the Examiner’s interpretation of the specification. Without the number “k” the last clause of the claim has no firm means by which it can be compared to another device to determine infringement and/or anticipation, and for a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art to establish what “k” or a “wire packet” is it would require undue guesswork and experimentation.
Regardless, again, like with the number of pole pairs of magnetic field for any phase winding, it is one thing for a reader to review the specification several times in an attempt to come to a vague notion of how this quantity “k” and other quantities like Pm might be counted and compared to each other for conformance to the two equations in the last clause of the claim, as the Examiner has done. It is another thing entirely to posit that the specification foundationally supports these elements, and that it further provides a real way to quantify them, such that a potentially infringing/anticipating device can be said to read or not read on the claim. The specification does not support these elements such that they can be quantified and compared to another device or used to make a device in such a way that the maker actually knows that they are making it in or out of conformance with the claimed relationships.
The Examiner has attempted to establish “k” by using the formula (Z = m x k) in the last clause of the claim, basically that k = Z / m. However, the claimed formula itself cannot be the basis for what something is and how to count it. Anyway, it seems from the math and from the table at the top of page 6 that for the metes and bounds of claims 1-2, whatever wire packets are, “k” is numerically exactly 2 when m = 3 and Z = 6 and 6 when Z = 18 and m = 3 (for the claimed invention and for the prior art where it is shown without alternative explanations), as well as exactly 4 when m = 3 and Z = 12... From what the Examiner can tell, m = 3 will always be the case in this Application and much of the prior art and k = Z / 3, always as well – this interpretation taken from page 6 of the application. The Examiner cannot completely understand why k is consistently Z / 3 in the specification due to the way an actual definition of “k” and “wire packets” is missing from the specification and drawings.
Claim 2 is rejected as depending from rejected claim 1 and also for invoking terms (Pm, k), that lack support in the specification as filed, as discussed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 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.
Claim 1, in lines 4, 7-8, 13, and 15, recites the limitation “in the 360o space around the stator”, “in the 360o space around the stator”, and/or “in a 360o space in a circumference of the rotor”. In each case it is unclear how the limitation bears on the structure before and/or after it. It is just a preposition that randomly shows up amidst other limitations. Sometimes it seems to be referring to inside the stator, sometimes to outside the stator, and it even appears to be saying at one point where the current is. The Examiner believes that the claim does not need the limitation at all, because it does not do any work and merely clouds the clauses within which it resides.
Claim 1, in line 6, recites the limitation “independently placed in a free space…” Firstly, the claim is an apparatus claim, and therefore cannot claim “free space”, and particularly not the space into which the apparatus is going to be put into during use, as this will always be different. Secondly, the Examiner cannot actually tell what is meant by the limitation.
Claim 1, in line 8, recites “number of pole pairs of magnetic field for any phase winding…” As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), a quantification of the pole pairs is not supported by the specification, and therefore they cannot be counted to establish the “number” (Pm), making the limitation indefinite.
Claim 1, in line 10, recites “wire packets” and “number of wire packets…” As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the wire packets are not supported by the specification, and therefore they cannot be counted to establish the “number” (k), making the limitation indefinite.
Claim 1, in lines 15-16, recites the limitation “in the circumference of the rotor…” In this particular motor (such as shown in figs. 4a and 4b), everything is spatially “within the circumference of the rotor”. This latter combination of words would be very broad, yet probably not indefinite. However, the limitation is “in the circumference” and the Examiner cannot tell what it means, especially since the air gap is actually by the circumference of the stator, not the rotor. He will interpret the limitation as meaning “along the circumference of the stator”.
The last clause (lines 17-20) of claim 1 and also lines 3-5 of claim 2 invoke the terms (Pm and k) rejected-to above, and give them specific relationships and/or numerical values. Therefore lines 17-20 of claim 1 and lines 3-5 of claim 2 are indefinite.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 106253530 A, reference provided with machine translation herein) in view of Hippies (JP 2015524650 A, reference provided with machine translation herein).
With respect to claim 1, Li teaches a harmonic magnetic field driving electric motor, wherein:
a plurality of tooth slots are provided in a stator (see abstract), and the number of the slots is Z (see translation ¶ 0042 which recites “Z is the number of stator slots”);
in a 360o space around a stator (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation), stator windings are divided into m phases (see ¶ 0041 which recites “m is the number of motor phases…”) according to a preset connection rule (see ¶ 0042 which recites “m = 3” and ¶ 0038 which recites “a condition for realizing three-phase symmetrical winding...”);
a stator assembly having the windings is independently placed in a free space (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation), and any phase winding is supplied with a constant direct current (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation, which is being disregarded entirely by the Examiner here); in the 360o space around the stator (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation), the number of pole pairs of magnetic field for any phase winding formed is Pm [Ps] (see ¶ 0036 which recites “number of stator pole pairs Ps…” and ¶ 0042 which recites “Ps the number of pole pairs of the stator…”;
each phase winding contains wire packets [A/B/C/D/E/F] (see fig. 5 attached below), the number of the wire packets is k = n x Pm (n = 1, 2, 3...) {since Pm, which is Ps in this reference, is an integer in all cases, there will always be a number 1 times, 2 times, 3 times, or n times it and it appears that since fig. 5 has two rows/layers, n would be 2 and so would k, thus Pm would be 1};
PNG
media_image1.png
447
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
magnetic steels [permanent magnets] of a permanent magnet rotor are arranged in a circumferential direction (see ¶ 0034 which recites “the rotor 2 is annular, and a plurality of permanent magnets are arranged on the peripheral wall of the cylinder at intervals); in a 360o space in a circumference of the rotor (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation), the number of pole pairs of the magnetic steels of the rotor formed is Pr (see ¶ 0047 which recites “Pr the number of pole pairs of the rotor” – it is noted that the “r” is missing from ¶ 0036 which recites “the number of rotor pole pairs P…” but it is understood to be included there too);
an electric motor air gap (see ¶ 0055 which refers to the air-gap with reference to fig. 6 – the air gap is taken as also being included in fig. 5, otherwise the rotor could not rotate) is formed in the 360o space around the stator (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation), and in the circumference of the rotor (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation);
wherein the number Pr of the pole pairs of the rotor of the harmonic magnetic field driving electric motor satisfies: Pr = Z + Pm [Pr = Z + Ps] (see equation 2 below which is a snapshot from page 5 of the original publication, and which “satisfies” Pr = Z + Ps under at least half of all possible instances);
PNG
media_image2.png
133
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein the number Z of the slots of the stator of the harmonic magnetic field driving electric motor satisfies: Z = m x k (Z = m x p x Ps, wherein k is (p x Ps) / 2, or (p x Pm) / 2, and p is described in ¶ 0040 of the translation as “number p of slots per pole and phase of each pole of the stator winding…” – see equation 4 below which is a snapshot from page 5 of the original publication)
PNG
media_image3.png
48
150
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and double-layer windings are adopted (in every imaginary radial line, in fig. 5 above, passing from the axis of rotation through a given slot, said radial line will encounter a first winding and then another winding (i.e. D then E, E then F, A then B, B then C, etc.).
{Examiner note – due to the inability of the Examiner to pinpoint exactly what a wire packet is in the instant application, and the oversimplified shortcut/abstraction he has been relying on to establish its quantity “k”, the reference itself seems to provide some understanding – from what he can tell, the relationship of p to Ps in the reference seems to be such that their product, divided by 2, is what “k” is in the present application).
Li omits the stator comprising stator laminations and the magnetic steels of the permanent magnet rotor alternately arranged in the order of N pole and S pole in a circumferential direction.
Hippies discloses a motor comprising a stator with teeth supporting windings in slots and an inner rotor with permanent magnets driven by the stator.
PNG
media_image4.png
208
283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
229
296
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hippies teaches the stator comprising stator laminations (plates – see fig. 7 and ¶ 0044 which recites “metal plates making up the stator”) and the magnetic steels [magnets] of the permanent magnet rotor alternately arranged in the order of N pole and S pole in a circumferential direction (see ¶ 0045 which recites “the rotor, which is separated from the stator 7 by an airgap 15, consists of a ferromagnetic yoke 9 supporting radially magnetized form of magnetized poles 8… with alternating N poles and S poles…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Li, while incorporating the laminations in the stator and the alternating N/S poles of the rotor, as taught by Hippies, because these are the most common arrangements for stators and rotors known in the motor arts. The authors of Li clearly left out discussion of the rotor poles and stator laminations because those elements are so well known in the art they are not required to be discussed in a reference for the reader to know that they are implicit except when stated otherwise. It is well known that a laminated stator reduces eddy currents and rotors with alternating poles allow the rotors’ outer perimeters to be driven via a wave of the electrical phases, and for these advantages a person of ordinary skill in the art would use them when making the motor of Li.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiki (US 6,285,104 B1) in view of Hippies (JP 2015524650 A, reference provided with machine translation herein).
With respect to claim 1, Nashiki teaches a harmonic magnetic field driving electric motor, wherein:
a plurality of tooth slots (the Examiner has labeled the slots in the fig. 16 excerpt attached below – it is noted that the slots are defined as the areas between the teeth STW, STVX, STU, etc. and are considered single slots even though they have magnetic path bypasses BPT within them) are provided in a stator [22], and the number of the slots is Z [6 in the embodiment of fig. 16];
in a 360o space around a stator (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation), stator windings [MW, MU, MV, MUM, MVM, MYM, MUM] are divided into m phases (col. 14, lines 45-49 recite “shown in FIG. 16, this is a three-phase eight-pole motor…”) according to a preset connection rule (the rule shown in fig. 16 wherein slots 1 and 4 contain phase MP/MPM, slots 3 and 6 contain phase MU/MUM, etc. – see also the bottom of col. 14);
PNG
media_image6.png
573
805
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a stator assembly [22] having the windings [MW, MU, MV, MUM, MVM, MYM, MUM] (still referring to the fig. 16 excerpt above) is independently placed in a free space (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation), and any phase winding is supplied with a constant direct current (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the preceding limitation, which is being disregarded entirely by the Examiner here); in the 360o space around the stator (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation), the number of pole pairs [MW/MU/MZ and the unlabeled counterparts for each one] of magnetic field for any phase winding formed is Pm [Pm = 2 – counting the labeled one and the unlabeled one for each phase in fig. 16];
each phase winding contains wire packets (two for each phase winding MW/MWM, MY/MYM, etc.), the number of the wire packets is k = n x Pm, n = 1, 2, 3... (n = 1 in fig. 16, so k = Pm = 2);
magnetic steels [permanent magnets 22] of a rotor [21] are alternately arranged in the order of N pole and S pole (still referring to fig. 16 – see also col. 14, line 45 through col. 15, line 20) in a circumferential direction; in a 360o space in a circumference of the rotor (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation), the number of pole pairs of the magnetic steels of the rotor formed is Pr [Pr = 4] (see fig. 16 and col. 14, line 47 which recites “this is a three-phase eight-pole motor” – 8 poles means 4 pole pairs);
an electric motor air gap (the Examiner has labeled the air gap in the fig. 16 excerpt above) is formed in the 360o space around the stator (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation) and in the circumference of the rotor (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the preceding limitation);
wherein the number Pr [4] of the pole pairs of the magnetic steels of the rotor of the harmonic magnetic field driving electric motor satisfies: Pr = Z - Pm [4 = 6 - 2 when Pr = 4, Z = 6, and Pm = 2]; and wherein the number Z [6] of the slots of the stator of the harmonic magnetic field driving electric motor satisfies: Z = m x k [6 = 3 x 2 when Z = 6, m = 3, and k = 2], and double-layer windings are adopted (the Examiner has labeled the two layers of windings in the fig. 16 Excerpt attached above).
Nashiki omits the stator comprising stator laminations and the magnetic steels of the permanent magnet rotor alternately arranged in the order of N pole and S pole in a circumferential direction.
Hippies discloses a motor comprising a stator with teeth supporting windings in slots and an inner rotor with permanent magnets driven by the stator.
PNG
media_image4.png
208
283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
229
296
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hippies teaches the stator comprising stator laminations (plates – see fig. 7 and ¶ 0044 which recites “metal plates making up the stator”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Nashiki, while incorporating the laminations in the stator and the alternating N/S poles of the rotor, as taught by Hippies, because this is the most common arrangements for stators known in the motor arts. The authors of Nashiki clearly left out discussion of the stator laminations because those elements are so well known in the art they are not required to be discussed in a reference for the reader to know that they are implicit except when stated otherwise. It is well known that a laminated stator reduces eddy currents, and for these advantages a person of ordinary skill in the art would use them when making the motor of Nashiki.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hopefully, once the claims have been thoroughly amended or rewritten by Applicant to remove unsupported, impossible, and/or indefinite language, the claims can be more thoroughly examined on the merits and art applied more effectively thereto. Applicant is requested to review the references cited in PTO Form 892 while drafting a response, particularly US 2004/0090136 A1, JP H09219942, US 20120001512 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834