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 .
Remarks
Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 9/27/2024.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9-11, 16, and 20 have been amended. Claim 21 is cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/27/2024 and 11/20/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosures statement are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ROTOR OF AN AXIAL FLUX PERMANENT MAGNET MACHINE HAVING A LAMINATE STRUCTURE.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1, 3-4, 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20011/0156519; IDS) in view of Andersen et al. (US 2013/0038070; IDS).
In claim 1, Wang teaches (Fig. 1-13) a method of manufacturing a rotor of an axial flux permanent magnet machine (10), the machine having a stator (30) comprising a set of coils (8) wound on respective stator bars (7) and disposed circumferentially at intervals about an axis of the machine (10), and a rotor (20) comprising a rotor body (2) bearing a set of permanent magnets (4) on a layer of metal laminate ([0004]) and mounted for rotation about the axis (6), and wherein the rotor (20) and stator (30) are spaced apart along the axis (6) to define a gap therebetween in which magnetic flux in the machine is generally in an axial direction, the method comprising: joining the set of permanent (4, [0008]) magnets to the metal laminate ([0004]).
Wang does not teach brazing the metal laminate to the rotor body.
However, Andersen teaches that braze-welding is utilized to weld elements of a rotor to a base (or body) element ([0012]).
Therefore in view of Andersen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to fasten and hold the metal laminate to the rotor body (Andersen; ([0011-0012]).
In claim 3, Wang as modified teaches the method of claim 3; furthermore Wang teaches applying a filling compound (5) to the metal laminate ([0004]) to fill interlamination spaces of the metal laminate ([0044-0046]).
In claim 4, Wang as modified teaches the method of claim 3; furthermore Wang teaches wherein the applying of a filling compound (5) comprises performing vacuum pressure impregnation with a resin (5; [0044-0046]).
In claim 11, Wang as modified teaches the method of claim 1; furthermore Wang teaches wherein the permanent magnets (4) are joined to the metal laminate with an adhesive (5; [0044-0046]).
In claim 12, Wang teaches (Fig. 1-13) an axial flux permanent magnet machine (10) comprising: a stator (30) comprising a set of coils (8) wound on respective stator bars (7) and disposed circumferentially at intervals about an axis of the machine (10); a rotor (20) bearing a set of permanent magnets (4) on a layer of metal laminate ([0004]) and mounted for rotation about said axis (6), wherein said rotor (20) and stator (30) are spaced apart along the axis (6) to define a gap therebetween in which the magnetic flux in the machine is generally in an axial direction, wherein the rotor (20) comprises a rotor body (2).
Wang does not teach a brazed join between the metal laminate and the rotor body.
However, Andersen teaches that braze-welding is utilized to weld elements of a rotor to a base (or body) element such that a braze join is created between said elements ([0012]).
Therefore in view of Andersen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to fasten and hold the metal laminate to the rotor body (Andersen; ([0011-0012]).
In claim 14, Wang as modified teaches the machine of claim 13; furthermore Wang teaches a filling compound (5) provided in interlamination spaces of the metal laminate ([0004; 0044-0046]).
In claim 15, Wang as modified teaches the machine of claim 14; furthermore Wang teaches wherein the filling compound comprises a resin (5).
In claim 16, Wang as modified teaches the machine of claim 13; furthermore Wang teaches an adhesive join between the metal laminate ([0004]) and the set of permanent magnets (4) and the metal laminate ([0044-0046]).
In claim 17, Wang teaches (Fig. 1-13) a rotor (20) of an axial flux permanent magnet machine (10), the rotor (20) comprising: a rotor body (2) bearing a set of permanent magnets (4) on a layer of metal laminate ([0004]).
Wang does not teach a brazed join between the metal laminate and the rotor body.
However, Andersen teaches that braze-welding is utilized to weld elements of a rotor to a base (or body) element such that a braze join is created between said elements ([0012]).
Therefore in view of Andersen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to fasten and hold the metal laminate to the rotor body (Andersen; ([0011-0012]).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20011/0156519) in view of Andersen et al. (US 2013/0038070), and further in view of Fromson (US 4486279; IDS).
In claim 2, Wang as modified teaches the method of claim 1, with the exception of applying electro-chemical machining to a surface of the of the metal laminate after brazing the metal laminate to the rotor body and before said joining of the set of permanent magnets, to de-burr said surface.
However, Fromson teaches that after the weld and machining of metal laminated magnetic sheets, electro-chemical machining is applied to surfaces in order to correct deficiencies caused by brazing and machining (Col. 1; ln. 12-50; Col. 2, ln. 33-68).
Therefore in view of Fromson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to reduce deviations in the size of the metal laminated magnetic sheets and reduce eddy current losses (Col. 1; ln. 12-50; Col. 2, ln. 33-68).
In claim 13, Wang as modified teaches the machine of claim 12; furthermore Wang does not teach wherein the metal laminate comprises an electro-chemically machined surface.
However, Fromson teaches that after the weld and machining of metal laminated magnetic sheets, electro-chemical machining is applied to surfaces in order to correct deficiencies caused by brazing and machining (Col. 1; ln. 12-50; Col. 2, ln. 33-68).
Therefore in view of Fromson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to reduce deviations in the size of the metal laminated magnetic sheets and reduce eddy current losses (Col. 1; ln. 12-50; Col. 2, ln. 33-68).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 5-10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitation of the (in)dependent claim(s), in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the features as presented in the (in)dependent claim(s) with the allowable feature being:
Claim 5: “wherein the brazing comprises: applying a brazing compound to a surface of the rotor body; positioning the metal laminate on the brazing compound on the rotor body; and heating the brazing compound to join metal laminate to the rotor body.”
Claim 10: “comprising identifying which surface of the metal laminate is flatter than the other surfaces of the metal laminate, and wherein the brazing is performed with the identified surface.”
Claim 18: “A method of joining metal laminate to a rotor body of a rotor, the method comprising: applying a brazing compound to a surface of the rotor body; positioning the metal laminate on the brazing compound on the rotor body; and heating the brazing compound to join the metal laminate to the rotor body.”
The examiner found no prior art satisfies all above conditions by itself or as combined during the examination period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sromin et al. (US 6037696) teaches a rotor for use in an electric machine, including a central sheet, typically connected to a rotating shaft, having a pair of opposing faces, typically parallel, and one or more pairs of permanent magnets.
Morehouse et al. (US 5377065) teaches a rigid disk drive information storage device which includes a rigid disk having a diameter in the range of about 45-50 mm., with a housing having a footprint that includes a width of about 51 mm. and utilizing a rotary actuator for positioning read/write recording elements across the surface of the disk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5pm.
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 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.
RASHAD H. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/RASHAD H JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights