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 U.S.C. § 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 1–6, 8, 11–16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2021351646A1) in view of Sakai (US2010/0327689A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a torque regulation system(FIGS. 1–3; ¶[0017], [0030]–[0032]; permanent magnet motor with motor rotor structure 10, operation regulated between operating states)
comprising: a variable-pole radial flux electric machine(FIGS. 1–3; ¶[0030]–[0031], [0038];
motor whose rotor core 100 is switchable between a more-magnetic-pole state and a fewer-magnetic-pole state; radial-flux geometry with rotor outer circle facing stator core across air gap g) including
a rotor, wherein the rotor includes: a rotor core defined by a rotor outer surface establishing an airgap between the rotor and the stator(¶[0013], [0033]–[0034]; rotor core 100 with outer circle; air gap g of the motor; pole flux crossing from the rotor outer circle into the stator core);
an N-number of magnetic poles each having at least one permanent magnet set in the rotor core and configured to generate magnetic flux(FIGS. 1–2; ¶[0030], [0034], [0038]; eight magnetic poles in the more-magnetic-pole state, the flux of each pole generated by its associated lower-coercivity permanent magnet 200 or higher-coercivity permanent magnet 300 mounted in first and second permanent magnet slots 110, 120 in the rotor core 100);
wherein: an N/2-number of the magnetic poles includes relatively high-coercivity magnets resistant to change of magnetization direction(¶[0031]; higher-coercivity permanent magnets 300, which hardly change when the lower-coercivity magnets are re-magnetized);
an N/2-number of the magnetic poles includes relatively low-coercivity magnets having variable direction of magnetization(¶[0031]–[0032]; lower-coercivity permanent magnets 200 whose magnetization direction is changed by armature current);
and the magnetic poles having the relatively high-coercivity magnets and the magnetic poles having the relatively low-coercivity magnets are arranged in alternating order around the rotor core(FIG. 1; ¶[0014], [0030], [0041]; one second permanent magnet slot 120 disposed between every two adjacent first permanent magnet slots 110 in the circumferential direction, such that the two magnet kinds and their associated poles strictly alternate around the rotor core).
Chen further teaches changing the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets to thereby alter the number of magnetic poles operating in the electric machine(¶[0032], [0034], [0038]; the number of magnetic poles of the rotor core changes between eight and four).
Chen does not explicitly teach a stator having a radially inner stator surface and stator windings arranged thereon; a rotor mounted inside the stator and configured to rotate relative thereto about a rotational axis; or an electronic controller configured to regulate operation of the variable-pole radial flux electric machine and change magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets via application of direct-axis current (id) thereto.
However, Sakai teaches a stator having a radially inner stator surface and stator windings arranged thereon(¶[0056], [0174]; armature coil 21 formed on an inner circumferential part of the stator 20 facing the magnetic air gap);
a rotor mounted inside the stator and configured to rotate relative thereto about a rotational axis(¶[0056], [0174]; rotor 1 accommodated inside the stator 20 across air gap 23, with magnets embedded symmetrically with respect to a rotation center);
and an electronic controller configured to regulate operation of the machine and change magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets via application of direct-axis current (id) thereto(¶[0086]–[0095]; variable flux control unit 113, magnetizing current table 127, and PWM inverter 104; ¶[0090]; the magnetizing current command is applied as a d-axis current command Id*; ¶[0099]–[0102]; a short d-axis current pulse of approximately 1–10 ms irreversibly changes, and at larger amplitude reverses, the magnetization direction of the low-coercive-force AlNiCo magnets 3 while the high-coercive-force NdFeB magnets 4 remain unaffected).
Chen and Sakai are in the same field of permanent magnet rotating machines having relatively high-coercivity and relatively low-coercivity magnets, and address the same problem of altering the rotor magnetization by stator current during operation to widen the efficient operating range of the machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Chen’s armature-current pole changeover using Sakai’s inverter-based electronic controller applying d-axis current pulses, for the predictable benefit identified by Sakai of changing the rotor magnetization on-line with a brief, low-loss current pulse and without a separate magnetizing apparatus(Sakai ¶[0099]), thereby realizing Chen’s stated expanded motor operating range(Chen ¶[0032]). The combination amounts to the application of a known control technique to a known device ready for improvement, yielding predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 2/1, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the torque regulation system according to claim 1.
Chen further teaches that the machine is operated such that the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets is reversed from being aligned with the arrangement producing the full pole count so that contrary polarities of the adjacent two magnet kinds face each other, thereby reducing the number of magnetic poles operating in the electric machine from N to N/2(¶[0032], [0034]; armature current changes the lower-coercivity magnet direction so that contrary polarities face, placing the rotor core in the fewer-magnetic-pole state; ¶[0038]; the pole count changes from eight to four, i.e., from N to N/2).
Chen does not explicitly teach that the reversal is effected via application of a positive direct-axis current (id) thereto.
However, Sakai teaches that the polarity of the applied d-axis current determines the resulting magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets, including applying a d-axis current of one polarity to establish alignment(¶[0100]; pulse d-axis current magnetizes the AlNiCo magnets additively) and a d-axis current of the opposite polarity, at larger amplitude, to reverse the polarity of the relatively low-coercivity magnets(¶[0101]–[0102]), with the polarity and amplitude selected by the controller through the magnetizing current command(¶[0087]–[0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the d-axis current polarity that opposes the aligned magnetization of the relatively low-coercivity magnets in accordance with Sakai’s explicit teaching that the applied polarity sets the resulting direction, for the predictable benefit of selectively entering the reduced-pole operating state to raise speed at constant electrical frequency.
Regarding claim 3/2, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the torque regulation system according to claim 2.
Chen further teaches that the machine is operated to return magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets to being aligned such that identical polarities of the adjacent two magnet kinds face each other, thereby increasing the number of magnetic poles operating in the electric machine from N/2 to N(¶[0032]; armature current restores the identical-polarity-facing arrangement, placing the rotor core in the more-magnetic-pole state; ¶[0038]; the pole count returns from four to eight).
Chen does not explicitly teach effecting the return via application of a negative direct-axis current (id) thereto.
However, Sakai teaches applying the d-axis current of opposite polarity to re-magnetize the relatively low-coercivity magnets back to the prior orientation, with the polarity selected by the controller(¶[0100]–[0102]; ¶[0087]–[0090]; both magnetizing and reversing polarities are commanded via the magnetizing current command applied to the d-axis current command).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the opposite (negative) d-axis current polarity to restore alignment, per Sakai’s explicit both-polarity teaching, for the predictable benefit of selectively re-entering the full-pole, high-torque operating state.
Regarding claim 4/1, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the torque regulation system according to claim 1.
Chen further teaches changing the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets based on a predetermined torque output of the electric machine(¶[0032]; the changeover between the more-magnetic-pole state and the fewer-magnetic-pole state is made according to whether the motor is in a large-torque operating state or a small-torque operating state).
Sakai further teaches performing the magnetization change according to a predetermined command framework in the electronic controller(¶[0085], [0087]; the magnetization request is generated upon a change in the flux command, and a predetermined magnetizing current command Im* is obtained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to condition Chen’s changeover on a predetermined torque output using Sakai’s predetermined-command controller, for the predictable benefit of automatically selecting the pole state matched to the demanded torque.
Regarding claim 5/1, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the torque regulation system according to claim 1.
Chen further teaches changing the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets based on a predetermined rotating speed of the electric machine(¶[0032]; the changeover is made according to whether the motor is in a low-speed operating state or a high-speed operating state, the fewer-pole state raising the rotation speed at the same electrical frequency).
Sakai further teaches performing the magnetization change according to a predetermined command framework in the electronic controller(¶[0085], [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to condition Chen’s changeover on a predetermined rotating speed using Sakai’s predetermined-command controller, for the predictable benefit of automatically extending the speed range of the machine.
Regarding claim 6/1, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the torque regulation system according to claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly recite numerical coercivity values.
However, Sakai teaches that the coercivity of each relatively high-coercivity magnet is greater than or equal to 1000 kA/m(¶[0062]; NdFeB second permanent magnet 4 having a coercive force of 1000 kA/m) and the coercivity of each relatively low-coercivity magnet is less than or equal to 520 kA/m(¶[0062]; AlNiCo first permanent magnet 3 having a coercive force of 120 kA/m; see also ¶[0059]; AlNiCo 60–120 kA/m and FeCrCo about 60 kA/m).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ Sakai’s NdFeB and AlNiCo magnet materials, with their disclosed coercive-force values, as Chen’s higher- and lower-coercivity magnets respectively, for the predictable benefit identified by Sakai that the high-coercivity magnet remains within its reversible range under the magnetizing field that fully switches the low-coercivity magnet, so that only the intended magnets change state.
Regarding claim 8/1, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the torque regulation system according to claim 1.
Chen further teaches that the magnetic poles having the relatively high-coercivity magnets and the magnetic poles having the relatively low-coercivity magnets have an asymmetrical configuration(¶[0039], [0043]; the lower-coercivity magnet thickness d1 is set to approximately d2×H2/H1, within ±10%, so that with H2 greater than H1 the lower-coercivity magnets of one pole set are dimensionally distinct than the higher-coercivity magnets of the alternating pole set; ¶[0040]; the lower-coercivity magnet width L1 is likewise set relative to L2 scaled by the remanence ratio Br2/Br1). Chen expressly teaches these dimensional distinctions between the alternating magnet kinds for the purposes of equalizing the anti-demagnetization capability of the two magnet kinds(¶[0043]) and balancing the pole fluxes to limit torque ripple(¶[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ Chen’s taught dimensionally asymmetrical configuration between the alternating high-coercivity and low-coercivity pole sets, for the predictable benefits identified by Chen of uniform anti-demagnetization capability and balanced flux with controlled torque ripple.
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches a variable-pole radial flux electric machine configured to generate torque(FIGS. 1–3; ¶[0030]–[0032], [0038]; permanent magnet motor whose rotor core 100 is switchable between a more-magnetic-pole state and a fewer-magnetic-pole state; radial-flux geometry with rotor outer circle facing stator core across air gap g)
and operable to provide an effective gear ratio change(¶[0032]; in the fewer-magnetic-pole state the generated torque is reduced while, at the same electrical frequency, the rotation speed increases — a torque/speed re-ratioing of the machine output),
the machine including a rotor, wherein the rotor includes: a rotor core defined by a rotor outer surface establishing an airgap between the rotor and the stator(¶[0013], [0033]–[0034]; rotor core 100 with outer circle; air gap g; pole flux crossing into the stator core);
an N-number of magnetic poles each having at least one permanent magnet set in the rotor core and configured to generate magnetic flux(FIGS. 1–2; ¶[0030], [0034], [0038]; eight magnetic poles in the more-magnetic-pole state, each pole’s flux generated by its associated lower-coercivity permanent magnet 200 or higher-coercivity permanent magnet 300 mounted in slots 110, 120 in the rotor core 100);
wherein: an N/2-number of the magnetic poles includes relatively high-coercivity magnets resistant to change of magnetization direction(¶[0031]; higher-coercivity permanent magnets 300); an N/2-number of the magnetic poles includes relatively low-coercivity magnets having variable direction of magnetization(¶[0031]–[0032]; lower-coercivity permanent magnets 200);
and the magnetic poles having the relatively high-coercivity magnets and the magnetic poles having the relatively low-coercivity magnets are arranged in alternating order around the rotor core(FIG. 1; ¶[0014], [0030], [0041]; one second permanent magnet slot 120 between every two adjacent first permanent magnet slots 110).
Chen further teaches changing the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets to thereby alter the number of magnetic poles operating in the electric machine and generate the effective gear ratio change(¶[0032], [0034], [0038]; changeover between eight and four poles produces, at the same electrical frequency, reduced torque and increased rotation speed).
Chen does not explicitly teach a motor vehicle comprising the machine for propulsion of the motor vehicle; a stator having a radially inner stator surface and stator windings arranged thereon; a rotor mounted inside the stator and configured to rotate relative thereto about a rotational axis; or an electronic controller configured to regulate operation of the variable-pole radial flux electric machine and change magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets via application of direct-axis current (id) thereto.
However, Sakai teaches a stator having a radially inner stator surface and stator windings arranged thereon(¶[0056], [0174]; armature coil 21 on an inner circumferential part of the stator 20 facing the magnetic air gap);
a rotor mounted inside the stator and configured to rotate relative thereto about a rotational axis(¶[0056], [0174]; rotor 1 inside stator 20 across air gap 23; rotation center);
an electronic controller that regulates operation and changes the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets via application of direct-axis current (id) thereto(¶[0086]–[0095], [0090], [0099]–[0102]; variable flux control unit 113 and PWM inverter 104 applying short d-axis current pulses that change and reverse the magnetization direction of the low-coercive-force AlNiCo magnets 3);
and employing such machines for a motor vehicle and its propulsion(¶[0069]; machines of this type are preferable for hybrid vehicles (HEVs) and electric trains that require high-output, small-sized motors).
Chen and Sakai are in the same field of permanent magnet rotating machines having relatively high-coercivity and relatively low-coercivity magnets, and address the same problem of altering the rotor magnetization by stator current during operation to widen the efficient operating range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Chen’s variable-pole machine, driven by Sakai’s inverter-based electronic controller applying d-axis current pulses, as the propulsion machine of a motor vehicle as taught by Sakai, for the predictable benefits identified by Sakai of a high-output, small-sized traction motor whose magnetization is changed on-line with a brief, low-loss current pulse and without a separate magnetizing apparatus, thereby realizing Chen’s expanded operating range during propulsion. The combination applies known techniques to a known device ready for improvement with predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 12/11, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the motor vehicle according to claim 11. Chen further teaches operating the machine such that the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets is reversed from alignment so that contrary polarities of the adjacent two magnet kinds face each other, thereby reducing the number of magnetic poles operating in the electric machine from N to N/2(¶[0032], [0034]; contrary-polarity facing places the rotor core in the fewer-magnetic-pole state; ¶[0038]; eight poles to four poles).
Chen does not explicitly teach effecting the reversal via application of a positive direct-axis current (id) thereto.
However, Sakai teaches that the polarity of the applied d-axis current determines the resulting magnetization direction, including a d-axis current pulse of one polarity establishing alignment(¶[0100]) and a larger pulse of the opposite polarity reversing the polarity of the relatively low-coercivity magnets(¶[0101]–[0102]), with polarity and amplitude selected via the magnetizing current command(¶[0087]–[0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the d-axis polarity opposing the aligned low-coercivity magnetization per Sakai’s explicit polarity-selection teaching, for the predictable benefit of entering the reduced-pole state to raise vehicle-drive speed at constant electrical frequency.
Regarding claim 13/12, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the motor vehicle according to claim 12. Chen further teaches operating the machine to return magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets to being aligned so that identical polarities face each other, thereby increasing the number of magnetic poles operating in the electric machine from N/2 to N(¶[0032]; identical-polarity facing restores the more-magnetic-pole state; ¶[0038]; four poles to eight poles).
Chen does not explicitly teach effecting the return via application of a negative direct-axis current (id) thereto.
However, Sakai teaches applying the d-axis current of the opposite polarity to re-magnetize the relatively low-coercivity magnets to the prior orientation, with polarity selected by the controller(¶[0100]–[0102]; ¶[0087]–[0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the opposite (negative) d-axis polarity to restore alignment, per Sakai’s explicit both-polarity teaching, for the predictable benefit of re-entering the full-pole, high-torque state for vehicle launch and climbing demands(Chen ¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 14/11, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the motor vehicle according to claim 11. Chen further teaches changing the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets based on a predetermined torque output of the electric machine(¶[0032]; changeover made according to the large-torque or small-torque operating state of the motor).
Sakai further teaches performing the magnetization change per a predetermined command framework of the electronic controller(¶[0085], [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to condition the changeover on a predetermined torque output using Sakai’s predetermined-command controller, for the predictable benefit of automatically matching the pole state to the demanded propulsion torque.
Regarding claim 15/11, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the motor vehicle according to claim 11. Chen further teaches changing the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets based on a predetermined rotating speed of the electric machine(¶[0032]; changeover made according to the low-speed or high-speed operating state, the fewer-pole state raising speed at the same electrical frequency).
Sakai further teaches performing the magnetization change per a predetermined command framework of the electronic controller(¶[0085], [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to condition the changeover on a predetermined rotating speed using Sakai’s predetermined-command controller, for the predictable benefit of automatically extending the vehicle-drive speed range.
Regarding claim 16/11, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the motor vehicle according to claim 11. Chen does not explicitly recite numerical coercivity values.
However, Sakai teaches that the coercivity of each relatively high-coercivity magnet is greater than or equal to 1000 kA/m(¶[0062]; NdFeB magnet with a coercive force of 1000 kA/m) and the coercivity of each relatively low-coercivity magnet is less than or equal to 520 kA/m(¶[0062]; AlNiCo magnet with a coercive force of 120 kA/m; ¶[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ Sakai’s NdFeB and AlNiCo materials, with their disclosed coercive-force values, as Chen’s higher- and lower-coercivity magnets, for the predictable benefit that the high-coercivity magnet remains in its reversible range under the field that fully switches the low-coercivity magnet.
Regarding claim 18/11, Chen in view of Sakai teaches the motor vehicle according to claim 11. Chen further teaches that the magnetic poles having the relatively high-coercivity magnets and the magnetic poles having the relatively low-coercivity magnets have an asymmetrical configuration(¶[0039], [0043]; the lower-coercivity magnet thickness d1 is set to approximately d2×H2/H1, within ±10%, such that with H2 greater than H1 the lower-coercivity magnets of one alternating pole set are dimensionally distinct than the higher-coercivity magnets of the other; ¶[0040]; the widths L1 and L2 are likewise related through the remanence ratio Br2/Br1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ Chen’s taught dimensionally asymmetrical configuration between the alternating pole sets, for the predictable benefits identified by Chen of uniform anti-demagnetization capability and balanced pole flux with controlled torque ripple.
Regarding claim 20, Chen teaches a variable-pole radial flux electric machine(FIGS. 1–3; ¶[0017], [0030]–[0031], [0038]; permanent magnet motor whose rotor core 100 is switchable between a more-magnetic-pole state and a fewer-magnetic-pole state; radial-flux geometry with rotor outer circle facing stator core across air gap g)
comprising a rotor, wherein the rotor includes: a rotor core defined by a rotor outer surface establishing an airgap between the rotor and the stator(¶[0013], [0033]–[0034]; rotor core 100 with outer circle; air gap g);
an N-number of magnetic poles each having at least one permanent magnet set in the rotor core and configured to generate magnetic flux(FIGS. 1–2; ¶[0030], [0034], [0038]; eight poles in the more-magnetic-pole state, each pole’s flux generated by its associated lower-coercivity permanent magnet 200 or higher-coercivity permanent magnet 300 in slots 110, 120);
wherein: an N/2-number of the magnetic poles includes relatively high-coercivity magnets resistant to change of magnetization direction(¶[0031]); an N/2-number of the magnetic poles includes relatively low-coercivity magnets having variable direction of magnetization(¶[0031]–[0032]);
and the magnetic poles having the relatively high-coercivity magnets and the magnetic poles having the relatively low-coercivity magnets are arranged in alternating order around the rotor core(FIG. 1; ¶[0014], [0030], [0041]);
and Chen further teaches that magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets is changed(as best understood, is changeable) such that the change alters the number of magnetic poles operating in the electric machine(¶[0032], [0034], [0038]; changeover between eight and four poles).
Chen does not explicitly teach a stator having a radially inner stator surface and stator windings arranged thereon; a rotor mounted inside the stator and configured to rotate relative thereto about a rotational axis; or that the magnetization direction is changed via application of direct-axis current (id) thereto.
However, Sakai teaches a stator with the armature coil on an inner circumferential part facing the magnetic air gap(¶[0056], [0174]; stator 20; armature coil 21), a rotor accommodated inside the stator to rotate about a rotation center(¶[0056], [0174]; rotor 1; air gap 23), and changing the magnetization direction of the relatively low-coercivity magnets via short-duration d-axis current pulses(¶[0090], [0099]–[0102]; magnetizing current applied as a d-axis current command; AlNiCo magnets 3 reversed while NdFeB magnets 4 are unaffected).
Chen and Sakai are in the same field of permanent magnet rotating machines having relatively high-coercivity and relatively low-coercivity magnets, and address the same problem of altering rotor magnetization by stator current during operation to widen the efficient operating range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Chen’s armature-current magnetization changeover as Sakai’s d-axis current pulses in Sakai’s inner-rotor stator-winding machine topology, for the predictable benefit identified by Sakai of changing rotor magnetization on-line with a brief, low-loss pulse without a separate magnetizing apparatus, thereby realizing Chen’s expanded operating range. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 10, 17, and 19 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.
Regarding claims 7/1 and 17/11, the closest prior art of record Chen (US11855488B2), Sakai (US20100327689A1), and Sasaki (US2018219463A1) expresses the conditions for full magnetization of the relatively low-coercivity magnets in terms of applied magnetic field strength or stator magnetomotive force, however none of the references teaches or reasonably suggests that full magnetization of the relatively low-coercivity magnets is achieved at a density of the magnetic flux that is lower than magnetic flux density required for saturation of the rotor laminations, a design relationship between the flux density at which the low-coercivity magnets reach full magnetization and the saturation flux density of the rotor laminations.
Regarding claims 9/1 and 19/11, no prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests that each magnetic pole includes a plurality of permanent magnets and is defined by a U-shape characterized by a flat portion generated by at least one of the constituent permanent magnets.
Regarding claim 10/1, no prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests, that each magnetic pole includes a plurality of permanent magnets defined by a Δ-shape having a flat portion arranged proximate the airgap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights