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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on September 24, 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-19 are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites a "electric machine" comprising a rotor of claim 1, but does not recite any additional limitations of said inventive element. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated KOL (DE 102019214434 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KOL teaches:
A rotor (Fig 1; 1) of an electric machine (Fig 1; 100), comprising a rotor support (Fig 1; 9), which can be rotated about a rotor axis (Fig 1; 9), a rotor sleeve (Fig 2; 21), and a rotor body (Fig 2; 2), which is arranged between the rotor support (Fig 2; 9) and the rotor sleeve (Fig 2; 21) and which comprises multiple rotor poles (Fig 2; 16/17) and at least one magnet pocket (Fig 2; 3) per rotor pole(Fig 2; 16/17) for receiving magnets (Fig 2; 4)
wherein the rotor body (Fig 2; 2) has at least one base body (Fig 2; 23), said base body (Fig 2; 23) being supported on the rotor support (Fig 2; 9) radially inside the magnet pockets (Fig 2; 3) with respect to the rotor axis (Fig 2; 9), and outer segment bodies (Fig 2; 24) radially outside the magnet pockets (Fig 2; 3), wherein:
multiple base bodies (Fig 2; 23) are provided one behind the other in a circumferential direction(separated by radial separation 26),
a radial separation (Fig 2; 26) which is continuous in a radial direction is formed between each pair of adjacent base bodies (Fig 2; 23) in a region radially within each magnet pocket (Fig 2; 3)(the separation 26 runs from the edge of the rotor core 2 to the rotor support 9, which is at least mostly radially within the magnet pocket 3) in order to allow a radial movement of the base bodies (Fig 2; 23),
the base bodies (Fig 2; 23) can be clamped between the rotor support (Fig 2; 9) and the rotor sleeve (Fig 2; 21) in order to clamp the magnets (Fig 2; 4) in the magnet pockets (Fig 2; 3)[0035].
PNG
media_image1.png
690
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, KOL teaches the rotor according to claim 1:
wherein the rotor support (Fig 2; 9) is inserted in the rotor (Fig 2; 1) with pressing in an axial direction, such that the base bodies (Fig 2; 23) are each moved in the radial direction with an expansion of the radial separations (Fig 2; 26), whereby a preload in the rotor sleeve (Fig 2; 21) and consequently the clamping of the magnets (Fig 2; 4) in the magnet pockets (Fig 2; 3) can be achieved.
The Examiner points out the limitations of in claim 2, are considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even 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, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 6, KOL teaches the rotor according to claim 1:
wherein the outer segment bodies (Fig 2; 24) and the base bodies (Fig 2; 23) are connected to each other by bridging webs (Fig 2; 22), which are located on an outer circumference of the rotor body (Fig 2; 2) or are each configured as separate laminated cores.
Regarding claim 10, KOL teaches the rotor according to claim 1:
wherein the rotor sleeve (Fig 2; 21) is a fiber composite sleeve comprising a fiber winding, and a cured composite material for embedding the fiber winding[0009].
Regarding claim 12, KOL teaches:
An electric machine (Fig 1; 100) with a rotor (Fig 1; 1) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, KOL teaches the rotor according to claim 1:
wherein the rotor sleeve (Fig 2; 21) is a fiber composite sleeve[0009].
Regarding claim 15, KOL teaches the rotor according to claim 1:
wherein the magnets (Fig 2; 4) are permanent magnets[0013].
Regarding claim 16, KOL teaches the rotor according to claim 1:
wherein the base bodies (Fig 2; 23) can be clamped between the rotor support (Fig 2; 9) and the rotor sleeve (Fig 2; 21) by virtue of an oversize of the rotor support (Fig 2; 9) or by winding the rotor sleeve (Fig 2; 21) under tension[0035].
Regarding claim 18, KOL teaches the rotor according to claim 10:
wherein the fiber winding is glass fiber[0035] or carbon fiber.
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(s) 3-4, 7-9, 11, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOL (DE 102019214434 A1) in view of HILL (DE 102014219231 A1).
In regards to claim 3, KOL teaches, the rotor according to claim 1.
KOL does not teach:
wherein:
a. adjacent base bodies each have flat separating surfaces facing each other at a distance to form the respective radial separation, or
b. adjacent base bodies each have a separation interface to form the respective radial separation, wherein the respective separation interface is formed by the adjacent base bodies engaging in each other by overlapping sheet metal segments.
HIL teaches:
wherein the rotor body (Fig 2; 1) has at least one base body (Fig 2; 11), and outer segment bodies (Fig 2; 21)radially outside the magnet pockets (Fig 2; 30), wherein:
multiple base bodies (Fig 2; 11)are provided one behind the other in a circumferential direction(separated by radial separation R),
a radial separation (Fig 2; R) which is continuous in a radial direction is formed between each pair of adjacent base bodies (Fig 2; 11) in a region radially within each magnet pocket (Fig 2; 30) in order to allow a radial movement of the base bodies (Fig 2; 11),
wherein:
adjacent base bodies (Fig 2; 11) each have flat separating surfaces facing each other at a distance to form the respective radial separation (Fig 2; R).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
807
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 KOL by using the radial separation taught by HIL, in order to allows better fixing of the core segments [0042 HIL], thus creating a more secure electric machine.
In regards to claim 4, KOL teaches, the rotor according to claim 1.
KOL does not teach:
wherein at least one of the base bodies has on its inner circumference a shaped contour for transferring torque, which cooperates with a corresponding counter-shaped contour of the rotor support.
HIL teaches:
wherein at least one of the base bodies (Fig 16/18; 11) has on its inner circumference a shaped contour (Fig 16/18; 47) for transferring torque, which cooperates with a corresponding counter-shaped contour (Fig 16/18; 48) of the rotor support (Fig 16/18; 43).
PNG
media_image3.png
298
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 KOL by using the depression and elevations taught by HIL, in order to form a reliable torque transmission and a rotationally secure mounting [0038 HIL].
In regards to claim 7, KOL teaches, the rotor according to claim 6.
KOL does not teach:
wherein the rotor body formed by a package of circular laminations, wherein the laminations each have sheet metal slots for generating the radial separation of the base bodies.
HIL teaches:
wherein the rotor body (Fig 2; 1) is formed by a package of circular laminations[0005], wherein the laminations each have sheet metal slots (Fig 7) for generating the radial separation (Fig 2; 1) of the base bodies (Fig 2; 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
161
409
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 KOL by using a package of circular laminations to make the rotor as taught by HIL, in order to decrease scrap in manufacturing[0112 HIL].
The Examiner points out the limitations of in claim 7, are considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even 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, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
In regards to claim 8, KOL teaches, the rotor according to claim 6.
KOL does not teach:
wherein the rotor body is formed by a flat package of contoured sheet metal strips, wherein the contoured sheet metal strips each comprise first sheet metal segments for forming the outer segment bodies and second sheet metal segments for forming the base bodies, wherein the sheet metal segments of the respective contoured sheet metal strip are connected to each other by the bridging webs, wherein the flat package is bent around the rotor support, wherein the ends of the flat package of contoured sheet metal strips are located adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction.
HIL teaches:
wherein the rotor body (the rotor is formed by the following limitations, but holds minimal patentable weight because it is a product by process, thus it is taught by the method shown in HIL [ Fig 7; 0005]) is formed by a flat package of contoured sheet metal strips, wherein the contoured sheet metal strips each comprise first sheet metal segments for forming the outer segment bodies and second sheet metal segments for forming the base bodies, wherein the sheet metal segments of the respective contoured sheet metal strip are connected to each other by the bridging webs, wherein the flat package is bent around the rotor support, wherein the ends of the flat package of contoured sheet metal strips are located adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction.
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 KOL by using a package of circular laminations to make the rotor as taught by HIL, in order to decrease scrap in manufacturing[0112 HIL].
The Examiner points out the limitations of in claim 8, are considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even 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, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
In regards to claim 9, KOL teaches, the rotor according to claim 6.
KOL does not teach:
wherein the rotor body is formed by spiral or helical upright rolling of a contoured sheet metal strip around the rotor support, wherein the contoured sheet metal strip comprises first sheet metal segments for forming the outer segment bodies and second sheet metal segments for forming the base bodies, wherein the sheet metal segments of the contoured sheet metal strip are connected to each other by the bridging webs.
HIL teaches:
wherein the rotor body (the rotor is formed by the following limitations, but holds no patentable weight because it is a product by process, thus it is taught by the method shown in HIL) is formed by spiral or helical upright rolling of a contoured sheet metal strip around the rotor support, wherein the contoured sheet metal strip comprises first sheet metal segments for forming the outer segment bodies and second sheet metal segments for forming the base bodies, wherein the sheet metal segments of the contoured sheet metal strip are connected to each other by the bridging webs.
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 KOL by using a package of circular laminations to make the rotor as taught by HIL, in order to decrease scrap in manufacturing[0112 HIL].
The Examiner points out the limitations of in claim 9, are considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even 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, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
In regards to claim 11, KOL teaches, the rotor according to claim 1.
KOL does not teach:
wherein the magnet pockets are each U-shaped, V-shaped, or C-shaped and each have two, pocket legs, wherein each of the pocket legs is configured to receive at least one of the magnets.
HIL teaches:
wherein the magnet pockets(Fig 2; 31) are each U-shaped, V-shaped, or C-shaped and each have two, pocket legs, wherein each of the pocket legs is configured to receive at least one of the magnets (Fig 2; 30).
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 KOL by using a V shaped magnet as taught by HIL, in order to increases the concentration factor [0025 HIL].
In regards to claim 17, KOL in view of HIL, teaches the rotor according to claim 4.
KOL does not teach:
wherein the shaped contour for transferring torque includes a protrusion or recess.
HIL teaches:
wherein the shaped contour (Fig 16/18; 47) for transferring torque includes a protrusion or recess(Fig 16/18).
In regards to claim 19, KOL in view of HIL, teaches the rotor according to claim 11.
KOL does not teach:
wherein the two pocket legs are mirror- symmetrical.
HIL teaches:
wherein the two pocket legs are mirror- symmetrical(shown in Fig 2).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOL (DE 102019214434 A1) in view of KIM (KR 102018229 B1).
In regards to claim 5, KOL teaches, the rotor according to claim 1.
KOL does not teach:
wherein a magnetic cooling channel for cooling the magnets is provided in each of the magnet pockets and is flow-connected to a cooling channel formed in the rotor support via a separating slot formed by the respective radial separation.
KIM teaches:
wherein a magnetic cooling channel (Fig 4; 1141) for cooling the magnets (Fig 4; 12) is provided in each of the magnet pockets and is flow-connected to a cooling channel (Fig 4; 1141) formed in the rotor support (Fig 4; 110) via a separating slot (Fig 4; 112) formed by the respective radial separation (Fig 4; 112).
PNG
media_image5.png
547
369
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 KOL by adding the cooling channels to cool the magnets as taught by KIM, in order to improve the output of the electric motor by improving the magnetic flux density of the permanent magnet and improve the magnetic flux. [0024 KIM].
In regards to claim 13, KOL teaches, the rotor according to claim 1.
KOL does not teach:
wherein the rotor support, is a rotor shaft.
KIM teaches:
wherein the rotor support, is a rotor shaft(Fig 2; 13).
PNG
media_image6.png
381
344
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 KOL by adding the rotor shaft as taught by KIM, in order to further extend the transmission of rotation power axially.
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Prior Art:
FANG (FR 3069972 A1): teaches manufacturing techniques disclosed in the present invention.
PNG
media_image7.png
499
473
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm 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, 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights