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 .
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 11/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1,3-7,11,14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 100979342).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses:
A rotor (100, Fig 1) of an electric machine (abstract), comprising:
a rotor shaft (101, last para in page 2) which can be rotated about a rotor axis (by A, Fig 1),
the rotor shaft (1) comprising multiple separate salient poles (104, Fig 4) arranged around a circumferential direction of the rotor (100),
which are anchored in a rotor yoke (see annotated Fig 4 below),
wherein the rotor yoke is formed in the rotor shaft (101).
PNG
media_image1.png
832
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3/1, Kim. discloses wherein the salient poles (104) are anchored to an anchoring ledge (by 102,103) of the rotor shaft (101), which is integrally formed on the rotor shaft (101).
Regarding claim 4/3, Kim discloses wherein the anchoring ledge (by 102/103) of the rotor shaft (101) comprises anchoring grooves (102), into which a protruding pole anchor (104 by 102) of one of the salient poles (104) extends, or wherein anchoring protrusions are formed on the anchoring ledge (by 102,103) of the rotor shaft (101), which each extend into a pole recess of one of the salient poles (104).
Regarding claim 5/4, Kim discloses wherein the pole anchor (see annotated Fig 4 below) or the pole recess of the salient poles (104) each comprises an anchoring profile, which is pine-shaped, tree-shaped, T-shaped, swallowtail-shaped, triangular, rectangular (Fig 4) or square.
PNG
media_image2.png
796
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6/5, Kim discloses wherein the anchoring grooves (by 102) or the anchoring protrusions of the rotor shaft (101) each comprise an anchoring counter profile (by 101,102) for interlocking with the anchoring profile (see annotated Fig 4 above) of the salient poles (104).
Regarding claim 7/6, Kim discloses wherein the anchoring grooves (by 102) of the rotor shaft (101) each have two groove walls, wherein tooth flanks (see annotated Fig 4 below) are formed on the groove walls of the respective anchoring groove, which extend in an axial direction with respect to the rotor axis and form indentations on the anchoring counter profile.
PNG
media_image3.png
814
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11/1, Kim discloses an electric machine with a rotor (100) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14/1, Kim discloses the rotor (100) according to claim 1, wherein the multiple separate salient poles (104) are anchored interlockingly in the rotor yoke (see annotated Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 15/3, Kim discloses the rotor (1) according to claim 3, wherein the anchoring ledge is cylindrical (Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 16/7 Kim discloses wherein the indentations on the anchoring counter profile are triangular or sawtooth-shaped (see annotated Fig 4 above).
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.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 100979342) in view of GB 730948.
Regarding claim 8/7, Kim discloses the rotor (100) according to claim 1 as discussed above, except wherein a plurality of tooth flanks are arranged, one after another, in a radial direction with respect to the rotor axis per groove wall of the respective anchoring groove.
GB 730948 teaches an apparatus wherein a plurality of tooth flanks are arranged, one after another, in a radial direction with respect to the rotor axis per groove wall of the respective anchoring groove (by 7,16, Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim wherein a plurality of tooth flanks are arranged, one after another, in a radial direction with respect to the rotor axis per groove wall of the respective anchoring groove, as GB 730948 teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to remove the coils for repair or replacement (page 1 ll 15-18 of GB 730948).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 100979342) in view of GB 804409.
Regarding claim 2/1, Kim discloses wherein the rotor shaft (101) is a body that is not comprised of sheets (Kim is silent regarding the shaft being made of multiple sheets – Fig 4 shows it being a solid one-piece construction).
Kim does not teach the salient poles are each formed as a pole body made from sheets.
GB 804409 teaches a device where the salient poles (14,24) are each formed as a pole body made from sheets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim salient poles are each formed as a pole body made from sheets, as GB 804409 teaches.
The motivation to do so would be based on ease of repair & replacement of parts and cost.
Regarding claim 13/1, Kim discloses the rotor according to claim 1 and the invention as discussed above, except wherein the rotor shaft is hollow.
GB 804409 teaches a device wherein the rotor shaft (12) is hollow (page 1, ll 68-74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim wherein the rotor shaft is hollow, as GB 804409 teaches.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired cooling, cost and weight.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 100979342) in view of Schmidt (WO 2017148549).
Regarding claim 12/1, Kim discloses. the rotor (100) according to claim 1 as discussed above, except wherein the electric machine is an electrically excited synchronous machine.
Schmidt teaches a device wherein the electric machine is an electrically excited synchronous machine (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Kim wherein the electric machine is an electrically excited synchronous machine, as Schmidt teaches.
The motivation to do so would be based on cost (abstract of Schmidt).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9,10, 17 and 18 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: In claim 9/4 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the anchoring ledge (6) of the rotor shaft (3) is a shaft shoulder with a largest radial extension and two shaft shoulders (16) are provided adjacent to the anchoring ledge (6) with a radially smaller extension, wherein the adjacent shaft shoulders (16) have outlet grooves (17) that lead into the anchoring grooves (7) of the anchoring ledge (6).”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 10/3 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the anchoring ledge (6) of the rotor shaft (3) is configured longer in an axial direction with respect to the rotor axis (2) than the salient poles (4).”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 10/3 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the anchoring ledge (6) of the rotor shaft (3) is configured longer in an axial direction with respect to the rotor axis (2) than the salient poles (4).”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 17/9 is also allowable for depending on claim 9.
Claim 18/10 is also allowable for depending on claim 10.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights