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 .
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)(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 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang et al (US 20180323662 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Jang discloses an electric motor (1), comprising a stator (fig. 4, stator 10) which forms a number PZs of magnetic poles of PZs = 2ps (fig. 4, stator 10 has 12 poles),with ps beinq a number of pole pairs of the stator (fig. 4, poles 12) the stator has a number NN of slots in which a stator winding is arranged, which is set up to generate a rotating magnetic field (paragraph 25 “a coil wound in the insulated pole”) a rotor, which is mounted movably about a rotation axis (fig. 4, rotor 20) and which carries permanent magnets on a circumferential side thereof (fig. 4, magnets 21); the rotor forms a number PZR of magnetic poles which corresponds to a number of the permanent magnets (fig. 4, 40 magnets 21)i a ratio of the number of magnetic poles PZR of the rotor and poles PZs of the stator, the following applies: PZR/PZs > 3 (fig. 4, 40 magnets and 12 teeth).
With respect to claim 2, Jang discloses PZR/PZs s < 10 (fig. 4, 40 magnets and 12 teeth).
With respect to claim 3, Jang discloses a stator (2) which forms a number PZs of magnetic poles of PZs = 2ps, with ps beinq a number of pole pairs of the stator (fig. 4, stator 10 has 12 poles);the stator (2) has a number NN of slots in which a stator winding is arranged (paragraph 25 “a coil wound in the insulated pole”), which is set up to generate a rotating magnetic field (fig. 4, stator 10); a rotor, which is mounted movably about a rotation axis (fig. 4, rotor 20) and which carries permanent magnets (5) on a circumferential side thereof (fig. 4, magnets 21); and
With respect to claim 4, Jang discloses a stator which forms a number PZs of magnetic poles of PZs = 2ps (fig. 4, stator 10), with ps being a number of pole pairs of the stator (fig. 4, stator 10 has 12 poles); the stator has a number NN of slots (14) in which a stator winding is arranged, which is set up to generate a rotating magnetic field (paragraph 25 “a coil wound in the insulated pole”); a rotor, which is mounted movably about a rotation axis (fig. 4, rotor 20) and which carries permanent magnets on a circumferential side thereof (fig. 4, magnets 21);
With respect to claim 6, Jang discloses at least seven
With respect to claim 7, Jang discloses PZR/PZs s 10 and
With respect to claim 8, Jang discloses the pole count PZs = 2ps of the stator (2) is selected to be high, with PZs > 8 (fig. 4 and paragraph 34 quoted above).
With respect to claim 9, Jang discloses the pole count PZR = 2pR of the rotor (3) is selected to be high, with PZR > 40 (fig. 4 and paragraph 34 quoted above).
With respect to claim 11, Jang discloses the teeth (10) of the stator are at least one of T-shaped oriented radially to the rotation axis (6) (fig. 4, poles 12 are t-shaped).
With respect to claim 13, Jang discloses wherein less than two of the teeth (10) per pole of the rotor are formed on the stator (fig. 4, no poles of rotor 20 are on the stator 10), so that for a number ZZs of teeth (10) on the stator (2): ZZs < 2 PZR (fig. 4, 12 poles 12 is less than the 40 magnets).
With respect to claim 15, Jang discloses a number of holes q of the electric motor (1) is defined as q = NN/(2ps m) where 2ps = PZs the number of magnetic poles of the stator (fig. 4, poles 12) and m is a number of phases or strands of the stator winding (fig. 4, paragraph 3 and throughout, motor is at least a 1 phase motor), and for the number of holes q: q < 1.5 (fig. 4, and 12/(2*12*(1-3)) <1.5).
With respect to claim 16, Jang discloses the number of the slots NN is an integer multiple of the number of the pole pairs ps of the stator (fig. 4, 12 poles and 12 slots multiple of 1).
With respect to claim 21, Jang discloses a relative angular position of the magnetic poles of the rotor (3) in the circumferential direction within a first axial segment of the rotor has an angular offset relative to a relative angular position of magnetic poles within a second axial segment of the rotor (see figure 4, magnets 21 are offset by the same circumferential width from one another).
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 10, 12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang.
With respect to claim 10, Jang teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “Bz/BPR < 0.7 and Bs/Bz > 1.2.”
Jang teaches wherein Bz/BPR < 0.7 and Bs/Bz > 1.2 (Jang discloses the claimed invention except for the specific value Bz/BPR < 0.7 and Bs/Bz > 1.2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select this range of values for the rotor and stator geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby increasing the efficiency of the rotor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Here, the value of the ratio would have been found after iterating on the motor geometry in order to improve the magnetic flux shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the rotor and stator of Jang with specific ratios of the pole geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby reducing the clogging torque and increasing the efficiency of the motor.
With respect to claim 12, Jang teaches the teeth (10) of the stator (2) form a tooth tip width BzK (16) on a radial inner side (fig. 4, pole 12 have a width on radial side)
Jang does not teach “a ratio of the slot width Bs (15) and the tooth tip width BzK (16): Bs/BzK > 0.45.”
Jang teaches a ratio of the slot width Bs (15) and the tooth tip width BzK (16): Bs/BzK > 0.45. (Jang discloses the claimed invention except for the specific value of BzK (16): Bs/BzK > 0.45. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select this range of values for the rotor and stator geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby increasing the efficiency of the rotor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Here, the value of the ratio would have been found after iterating on the motor geometry in order to improve the magnetic flux shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the rotor and stator of Jang with specific ratios of the pole geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby reducing the clogging torque and increasing the efficiency of the motor.
With respect to claim 14, teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “a ratio of a minimum inner diameter (18) Ds of the stator (2) and a maximum outer diameter (19) Dsa of the stator (2): Dsi/Dsa > 0.8.
Jang teaches a ratio of a minimum inner diameter (18) Ds of the stator (2) and a maximum outer diameter (19) Dsa of the stator (2): Dsi/Dsa > 0.8 (Jang discloses the claimed invention except for the specific value Dsi/Dsa > 0.8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select this range of values for the rotor and stator geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby increasing the efficiency of the rotor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Here, the value of the ratio would have been found after iterating on the motor geometry in order to improve the magnetic flux shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the rotor and stator of Jang with specific ratios of the pole geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby reducing the clogging torque and increasing the efficiency of the motor.
With respect to claim 17, Jang discloses a magnet width BM (21) of a respective one of the permanent magnets (5) of the rotor (3) is defined as a circular arc BM = 0 2 TTDRa/NM, which is occupied by one of the permanent magnets, with DRa beinq a maximum outer diameter of the rotor (fig. 4, rotor 20 has a diameter), Q beinq a circumferential portion occupied by the permanent magnets (fig. 4, magnets 21 space occupied) and NM being a number of permanent magnets (5) of the rotor (fig. 4, magnets 21 40 magnets),
Jang does not teach “BM< 20 mm.”
Jang teaches BM< 20 mm (Jang discloses the claimed invention except for the specific value BM< 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select this range of values for the rotor and stator geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby increasing the efficiency of the rotor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Here, the value of the ratio would have been found after iterating on the motor geometry in order to improve the magnetic flux shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the rotor and stator of Jang with specific ratios of the pole geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby reducing the clogging torque and increasing the efficiency of the motor.
With respect to claim 18, Jang teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the stator (2) has an outer circumference of Us = 2 rr Dsa (19) and wherein: 25 mm < Us/PZR < 75 mm.”
Jang teaches the stator (2) has an outer circumference of Us = 2 rr Dsa (19) and wherein: 25 mm < Us/PZR < 75 mm (Jang discloses the claimed invention except for the specific value of the circumference being 25 mm < Us/PZR < 75 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select this range of values for the rotor and stator geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby increasing the efficiency of the rotor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Here, the value of the ratio would have been found after iterating on the motor geometry in order to improve the magnetic flux shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the rotor and stator of Jang with specific ratios of the pole geometry in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby reducing the clogging torque and increasing the efficiency of the motor.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Szücs et al (US 20200350809 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Jang teaches an external rotor and carries the permanent magnets on an inner circumference (fig. 4, magnets 21).
Jang does not teach “the electric motor is designed as an axial flux motor, a radial flux motor, or a combination of an axial flux motor and a radial flux motor and/or wherein the rotor is designed as an internal rotor and carries the permanent magnets on an outer circumference”
Szücs teaches the electric motor is designed as an axial flux motor, a radial flux motor, or a combination of an axial flux motor and a radial flux motor and/or wherein the rotor is designed as an internal rotor and carries the permanent magnets on an outer circumference or
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the rotor and stator of Jang with the combination motor styles of Szücs in order to use the specific pole ratios with a variety of motors, thereby increasing their efficiency due to the reduction of clogging torque.
With respect to claim 19, Jang teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “at least one of: a) the stator winding (4) has a plurality pf strands or phase the electric motor further comprises a frequency converter with which the stator winding (4) is adapted to be supplied with electrical voltage, the stator (2) has a three-phase stator winding.”
Szücs teaches at least one of: a) the stator winding (4) has a plurality of strands or phases the electric motor (paragraph 49 “The synchronous double stator electric machine 500 may be a three phase synchronous double stator electric machine and the grid 400 may be a three phase electric grid.”), further comprises a frequency converter with which the stator winding (paragraph 47 “the second stator 300 of the synchronous double stator electric machine 500 may be connected to a second frequency converter 350 and the second frequency converter may be connected to the grid 400”) [[can]] is adapted to be supplied with electrical voltage, the stator (2) has a three-phase stator winding (4) (paragraph 53 “The control method could be a traditional Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) technique in which the frequency and the voltage is regulated and supplied through a modulator and semiconductor switches to the electric machine. The use of a modulator will, however, produce a delay in the control circuit, whereby the response of the electric machine to the frequency and voltage control is slowed down.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the rotor and stator of Jang with the combination motor controlling of Szücs in order to use the motor such that work can be created via the voltage administration and the motor used for the work created.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of TAKAGI et al (US 20180261367 A1)
With respect to claim 20, Jang teaches a respective flux direction of the permanent magnets (5) of the rotor (3) is oriented radially with respect to the rotation axis (6) of the rotor (fig. 3-4, magnets face stator radially and therefore have a radial flux)
Jang does not teach “at least one of the permanent magnets (5) of the rotor (3) are electrically insulated from a rotor body (6) of the rotor (3),
TAKAGI teaches at least one of the permanent magnets (5) of the rotor (3) are electrically insulated from a rotor body (6) of the rotor (paragraph 46 “Subsequently, a conducting region and an insulating region in a rectangular region (hereinafter also referred to as “facing surface region”), in which the lower surface 4a of the magnet 4A and the upper surface 4b of the magnet 4B of the magnet stack 4 face each other, will be described with reference to FIGS. 4, 5A, 5B, 6A to 6D, and 7A to 7F.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the rotor and stator of Jang with the insulation regions of TAKAGI in order to prevent eddy currents within the rotor thereby increasing the rotor’s efficiency due to the current’s suppression.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Ichimura (US 5331237 A)
With respect to claim 22, Jang teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the electric motor (1) is dimensioned and supplied with an electrical operating voltage such that a maximum stator frequency of fs,max = 200 Hz is not exceeded during operation.”
Ichimura teaches the electric motor (1) is dimensioned and supplied with an electrical operating voltage such that a maximum stator frequency of fs,max = 200 Hz is not exceeded during operation (col. 3, ln 30-37 “the maximum limit in starting frequency of the conventional stepping motor (which is provided with the stator yokes constructed of sheet metals) is approximately 1500 Hz, while that of the stepping motor of the present invention (which is provided with the molded stator yokes) is approximately 2000 Hz which is wider in frequency band than the above 1500 Hz by approximately 500 Hz.” Ichimura teaches the claimed invention except for the specific value of fs,max = 200 Hz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select this range of values for the stator frequency in order to better shape the magnetic flux, thereby increasing the efficiency of the rotor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Here, the value of the ratio would have been found after iterating on the motor geometry in order to improve the magnetic flux shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the rotor and stator of Jang with the maximum frequency of Ichimura in order to better drive the stator thereby better using the magnetic flux, thereby reducing the clogging torque and increasing the efficiency of the motor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights