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 Objections
Claims 15 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 15, the recitation “the additive manufacturing method a “wire/powder-feed laser metal deposition” method” should be changed to “the additive manufacturing method comprises a “wire/power-feed laser metal deposition” method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
No special definitions are given to the terms “wire feed electron beam additive manufacturing” method in claim 13; “cold spray additive manufacturing” method in claim 14; “wire/powder-feed laser metal deposition” method in claim 15, and 20; “friction deposition additive manufacturing” method or “rotary friction welding” in claim 16; and “ultrasonic additive manufacturing” method in claim 17. It is unclear why these terms were placed within quotations when they are used for their plain meaning throughout the specification and the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 12-14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geng (CN 113691085, submitted by applicant).
As to claim 12, Geng discloses a rotor of a squirrel-cage motor with a squirrel cage (Fig. 5), wherein rotor bars of the squirrel cage motor extend in an axial direction through a cylindrical rotor body (Fig. 5) and are each interconnected by short-circuit rings on or proximate to end faces of the rotor body (Fig. 5), and wherein the short-circuit rings are applied to the end faces of the cylindrical rotor body directly via an additive manufacturing method (“The corresponding end ring close to each end surface is obtained by additive manufacturing”).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13, Gen discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 12, wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises a "wire feed electron beam additive manufacturing" method (“for example, the other processing steps may be layered Add processing, layer subtract processing or mixed processing. Additive manufacturing can be done by any of the fused deposition modeling method, selective laser sintering method, stereo lithography method, electron beam sintering method and other methods”).
As to claim 14, Geng discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 12, wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises a "cold spray additive manufacturing" method (“a predetermined portion of the metal powder is melted by a laser, and the molten metal powder is solidified to form the first cross-sectional layer. At the same time, during the laser sintering of the metal powder, the metal powder near the guide bar melts, and the part of the metal powder is solidified and consolidated with the outer surface of the guide bar, so that the first cross-section layer is fixedly connected to the guide bar. It should be noted that in this step, the metal powder is melted by the laser, but the thickness of the sprayed metal powder is relatively thin, and only a predetermined part of the metal powder needs to be melted. The laser acts on the metal powder for a short time, and the heat generated by the laser The impact on the end of the rotor core is very small, or even negligible”).
As to claim 26, Geng discloses a method for producing the rotor of a squirrel-cage motor (“The embodiment of the present invention provides a method for manufacturing a squirrel cage assembly”), the method comprising: inserting rotor bars of the squirrel cage into a cylindrical rotor body and into prepared recesses of the cylindrical rotor body (“There are a plurality of guide bars 20, which are arranged at intervals around the first direction”); and applying short-circuit rings to or proximate to end faces of the cylindrical rotor body directly via an additive manufacturing method (“two end rings are obtained by additive manufacturing”).
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.
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng and in view of Wu (CN 216414143 submitted by applicant).
As to claim 15, Geng discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 12.
Geng fails to discloses wherein the additive manufacturing method a "wire/powder-feed laser metal deposition" method.
Wu, however, discloses wherein the additive manufacturing method a "wire/powder-feed laser metal deposition" method (“Additive manufacturing can be performed by any one of fused deposition modeling, selective laser sintering, stereolithography, and electron beam sintering.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the additive manufacturing method a "wire/powder-feed laser metal deposition" method, as disclosed by Wu, to optimize the speed of manufacturing.
As to claim 16, Geng discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 12.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises a "friction deposition additive manufacturing" method or "rotary friction welding".
Wu, however, discloses wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises a "friction deposition additive manufacturing" method or "rotary friction welding" (“Additive manufacturing can be performed by any one of fused deposition modeling “, and “In the related art, the guide bar and the end ring are manufactured in advance and fixedly connected by welding”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises a "friction deposition additive manufacturing" method or "rotary friction welding", as disclosed by Wu, to improve strength and durability of the rotor.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng and in view of Cole (US 20220098350).
As to claim 17, Geng discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 12.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises a "ultrasonic additive manufacturing" method.
Cole, however, discloses wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises a "ultrasonic additive manufacturing" method (Para 0296).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises a "ultrasonic additive manufacturing" method, as disclosed by Cole, to avoid thermal distortion and microstructural changes while preserving mechanical properties and enabling high structural stability.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng and in view of De Gaillard (US 20220025900).
As to claim 18, Geng discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 13.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with galvanization, explosion cladding, electron beam welding, laser beam welding or soldering processes.
De Gaillard, however, discloses wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding (Para 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding, as disclosed by De Gaillard, to optimize structural integrity.
As to claim 19, Geng discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 14.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with galvanization, explosion cladding, electron beam welding, laser beam welding or soldering processes.
De Gaillard, however, discloses wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding (Para 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding, as disclosed by De Gaillard, to optimize structural integrity.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng, Wu, and in view of De Gaillard.
As to claim 20, the combination of Geng and Wu discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 15.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with galvanization, explosion cladding, electron beam welding, laser beam welding or soldering processes.
De Gaillard, however, discloses wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding (Para 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding, as disclosed by De Gaillard, to optimize structural integrity.
As to claim 21, the combination of Geng and Wu discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 16.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with galvanization, explosion cladding, electron beam welding, laser beam welding or soldering processes.
De Gaillard, however, discloses wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding (Para 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding, as disclosed by De Gaillard, to optimize structural integrity.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng, Cole, and in view of De Gaillard.
As to claim 22, the combination of Geng and Cole discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 17.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with galvanization, explosion cladding, electron beam welding, laser beam welding or soldering processes.
De Gaillard, however, discloses wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding (Para 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the additive manufacturing method is combinable with laser beam welding, as disclosed by De Gaillard, to optimize structural integrity.
Claim 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng, and in view of Popov (US 20220123635).
As to claim 23, Geng discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 12.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the short-circuit rings are made of copper or copper alloys.
Popov discloses wherein the short-circuit rings are made of copper (Para 0123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the short-circuit rings are made of copper, as disclosed by Popov, to improve motor efficiency and allow for higher power output.
As to claim 24, Geng discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 12.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the short-circuit rings are made of aluminum.
Popov discloses wherein the short-circuit rings are made of aluminum (Para 0123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the short-circuit rings are made of aluminum, as disclosed by Popov, to improve motor efficiency and allow for higher power output.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng, and in view of Thumm (US 20190149027).
As to claim 25, Geng discloses the rotor as claimed in claim 12.
Geng fails to disclose wherein the cylindrical rotor body includes a plate stack consisting of a plurality of sheet metal plates stacked adjacently to one another in an axial direction.
Thumm discloses wherein the cylindrical rotor body includes a plate stack consisting of a plurality of sheet metal plates stacked adjacently to one another in an axial direction (Para 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Geng with wherein the cylindrical rotor body includes a plate stack consisting of a plurality of sheet metal plates stacked adjacently to one another in an axial direction, as disclosed by Thumm, to balance eddy current suppression.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can
normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 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 M Koehler can be reached on 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.
/ETHAN NGUYEN VO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights