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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueyuekasik (DE102014206541) in view of Han (KR20080018380) and Nagate et al. (5,371,426).
As to independent claim 1, Bueyuekasik teaches a motor comprising: a rotor (13) configured to rotate around a rotating shaft (15), and including a magnetic material (10) generating rotational force by interacting with the plurality of stator coils (inherent to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the rotor), wherein the magnetic material (10) forms a band shape and configured to be continuously disposed in the circumferential direction, and wherein the magnetic material (10) is repeatedly arranged in an axial direction, forming a plurality of layers in the axial direction as shown in figure 1.
However Bueyuekasik teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except a stator having a plurality of stator coils repeatedly disposed in a circumferential direction and and a magnetic material generating rotational force by interacting with the plurality of stator coils and forming a plurality of layers in the axial direction.
Han teaches a stator (110) having a stator coil (112) repeatedly disposed in a circumferential direction and a magnetic material (130) generating rotational force by interacting with the stator coil (112) and forming a plurality of layers (131, 132) in the axial direction as shown in figures 2 and 3, for the advantageous benefit of improving the characteristics of the motor.
Nagate et al. teaches a plurality of stator coils (column 6, lines 60-62), for the advantageous benefit of providing effectively contributing to the rotation of the rotor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik by using a protective layer that covers a side, facing towards the stator of the at least one permanent magnet, as taught by Han and Nagate et al., to improve the characteristics of the motor and provide effectively contributing to the rotation of the rotor.
As to claim 7/1, Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein a plurality of the magnetic materials are stacked on one another in a radial direction, forming a plurality of layers in the radial direction.
Han teaches a plurality of the magnetic materials (131, 132) are stacked on one another in a radial direction, forming a plurality of layers in the radial direction as shown in figures 2 and 3, for the advantageous benefit of improving the characteristics of the motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. by using a protective layer that covers a side, facing towards the stator of the at least one permanent magnet, as taught by Han, to improve the characteristics of the motor.
As to claim 10/1, Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further comprising: a rotor sleeve covering an exterior of the magnetic material.
Nagate et al. teaches a rotor sleeve (40) covering an exterior of the magnetic material (36, 38) as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of providing rotor component retention against rotational centrifugal force while avoiding magnetic shunting.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. by using a rotor sleeve covering an exterior of the magnetic material, as taught by Nagate et al., to provide rotor component retention against rotational centrifugal force while avoiding magnetic shunting.
As to claim 11/10, Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor sleeve is formed of a non-magnetic material.
However Nagate et al. teaches the rotor sleeve (40) is formed of a non-magnetic material (see abstract), for the advantageous benefit of providing rotor component retention against rotational centrifugal force while avoiding magnetic shunting.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. by using the rotor sleeve is formed of a non-magnetic material, as taught by Nagate et al., to provide rotor component retention against rotational centrifugal force while avoiding magnetic shunting.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueyuekasik (DE102014206541), Han (KR20080018380) and Nagate et al. (5,371,426) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0093426).
As to claim 2/1, Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the magnetic material includes a bonding portion for each layer of the plurality of layers, and wherein the bonding portions provided on the magnetic material are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction.
However Yoshida et al. teaches the magnetic material (10) includes a bonding portion for each layer of the plurality of layers (see figure 26), and wherein the bonding portions provided on the magnetic material (10) are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction as shown in figures 1 and 26, for the advantageous benefit providing adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. by using a protective layer that covers a side, facing towards the stator of the at least one permanent magnet, as taught by Yoshida et al., to provide adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
As to claim 3/1, Bueyuekasik, Han and Nagate et al. in view of Yoshida et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the magnetic material includes N number of bonding portions for each layer of the plurality of layers, where N is a natural number of 2 or more, and wherein the bonding portions disposed in each layer are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction.
However Yoshida et al. teaches the magnetic material (10) includes N number of bonding portions for each layer of the plurality of layers (see figure 26) , where N is a natural number of 2 or more, and wherein the bonding portions disposed in each layer are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction as shown in figures 1 and 26, for the advantageous benefit providing adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. by using the magnetic material includes N number of bonding portions for each layer of the plurality of layers, where N is a natural number of 2 or more, and wherein the bonding portions disposed in each layer are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction, as taught by Yoshida et al., to provide adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
As to claim 4/3, Bueyuekasik, Han and Nagate et al. in view of Yoshida et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the entirety of bonding portions provided on the magnetic material are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction.
However Yoshida et al. teaches the entirety of bonding portions provided on the magnetic material (10) are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction as shown in figures 1 and 26, for the advantageous benefit providing adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. by using the entirety of bonding portions provided on the magnetic material are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction, as taught by Yoshida et al., to provide adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueyuekasik (DE102014206541), Han (KR20080018380) and Nagate et al. (5,371,426) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (CN1917339)
As to claim 8/1, Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the magnetic material is configured as a superconducting wire.
Liu teaches the magnetic material is configured as a superconducting wire (Bi-2223) see page 6, lines 14-15, for the advantageous benefit of providing a high temperature superconducting motor structure to reduce the volume of the motor, reduce the cooling power, and effectively improves the safety and stability of the superconducting motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. by using a protective layer that covers a side, facing towards the stator of the at least one permanent magnet, as taught by Liu, to provide a high temperature superconducting motor structure to reduce the volume of the motor, reduce the cooling power, and effectively improves the safety and stability of the superconducting motor.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueyuekasik (DE102014206541), Han (Kr20080018380 and Nagate et al. (5,371,426) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuetterer (DE4021256).
As to claim 9/1, Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the magnetic material is a copper wire or an aluminum wire.
However Fuetterer teaches the magnetic material (1) is a copper wire or an aluminum wire (see column 1, lines 12-15), for the advantageous benefit of improving its manufacture so that the rotor is easy and can be manufactured inexpensively.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik in view of Han and Nagate et al. by using the magnetic material is a copper wire or an aluminum wire, as taught by Fuetterer, to improving its manufacture so that the rotor is easy and can be manufactured inexpensively.
Claim(s) 12, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0119606) in view of Nagate et al. (5,371,426).
As to independent claim 12, Murakami et al. teaches a motor (100) comprising: a stator (50); and a rotor (1) configured to rotate around a rotating shaft (2), and including a magnetic material (4), wherein N number of pieces of the magnetic material (4) are configured to be continuously disposed in the circumferential direction, where N is a natural number of 2 or more as shown in figure 2.
However Murakami et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except stator having a plurality of stator coils repeatedly disposed in a circumferential direction and magnetic material generating rotational force by interacting with the plurality of stator coils.
However Nagate et al. teaches stator having a plurality of stator coils (column 6, lines 60-62)repeatedly disposed in a circumferential direction and magnetic material (20) generating rotational force by interacting with the plurality of stator coils (column 6, lines 60-62), for the advantageous benefit of providing effectively contributing to the rotation of the rotor.
As to claim 18/12, Murakami et al. in view of Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further comprising: a rotor sleeve covering an exterior of the magnetic material.
Nagate et al. teaches a rotor sleeve (40) covering an exterior of the magnetic material (36, 38) as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of providing rotor component retention against rotational centrifugal force while avoiding magnetic shunting.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Murakami et al. in view of Nagate et al. by using a rotor sleeve covering an exterior of the magnetic material, as taught by Nagate et al., to provide rotor component retention against rotational centrifugal force while avoiding magnetic shunting.
As to claim 19/18, Murakami et al. in view of Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor sleeve is formed of a non-magnetic material.
However Nagate et al. teaches the rotor sleeve (40) is formed of a non-magnetic material (see abstract), for the advantageous benefit of providing rotor component retention against rotational centrifugal force while avoiding magnetic shunting.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Murakami et al. in view of Nagate et al. by using the rotor sleeve is formed of a non-magnetic material, as taught by Nagate et al., to provide rotor component retention against rotational centrifugal force while avoiding magnetic shunting.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0119606) and Nagate et al. (5,371,426) as applied in claim 12 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US PG Pub 2016/009326).
As to claim 13/12, Murakami et al. in view of Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the pieces forming the magnetic material each have the same shape and the same size.
However the pieces forming the magnetic material (10) each have the same shape and the same size as shown in figure 1 and 26, for the advantageous benefit providing adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bueyuekasik in view of Nagate et al. by using the pieces forming the magnetic material each have the same shape and the same size, as taught by Yoshida et al., to provide adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
As to claim 14/12, Murakami et al. and Nagate et al. in view of Yoshida et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the magnetic material includes a bonding portion in a portion adjacent to each of the pieces, wherein N number of the bonding portions are provided, where N is a natural number of 2 or more, and wherein the bonding portions are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction.
However Yoshida et al. teaches the magnetic material (10) includes a bonding portion in a portion adjacent to each of the pieces (see figure 26), wherein N number of the bonding portions are provided, where N is a natural number of 2 or more, and wherein the bonding portions are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction as shown in figures 1 and 26, for the advantageous benefit providing adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Murakami et al. and Nagate et al. in view of Yoshida et al. by using the magnetic material includes a bonding portion in a portion adjacent to each of the pieces, wherein N number of the bonding portions are provided, where N is a natural number of 2 or more, and wherein the bonding portions are disposed at the same distance in the circumferential direction, as taught by Yoshida et al., to provide adverse effect on the magnetic paths can be reduced while reducing volume and weight of the magnet.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0119606) and Nagate et al. (5,371,426) as applied in claim 12 above, and further in view of Fuetterer (DE4021256).
As to claim 17/12, Murakami et al. in view of Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the magnetic material is a copper wire or an aluminum wire.
However Fuetterer teaches the magnetic material (1) is a copper wire or an aluminum wire (see column 1, lines 12-15), for the advantageous benefit of improving its manufacture so that the rotor is easy and can be manufactured inexpensively.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Murakami et al. in view of Nagate et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except by using the magnetic material is a copper wire or an aluminum wire, as taught by Fuetterer, to improving its manufacture so that the rotor is easy and can be manufactured inexpensively.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlovich (US PG Pub 2023/0029427) in view of Bueyuekasik (DE102014206541), Han (KR20080018380) and Nagate et al. (5,371,426).
As to independent claim 20, Karlovich teaches a mobility device (10) comprising: at least one drive means provided on a body of the mobility device; a battery disposed in the body; and a motor connected to the battery and providing driving force to the at least one drive means (see paragraph [0142]),
However Karlovich teaches the claimed limitation as dissed above except wherein the motor comprising: a stator having a plurality of stator coils repeatedly disposed in a circumferential direction; and a rotor configured to rotate around a rotating shaft and including a magnetic material generating rotational force by interacting with the plurality of stator coils, wherein the magnetic material forms a band shape and configured to be continuously disposed in the circumferential direction, and wherein the magnetic material is repeatedly arranged in an axial direction, forming a plurality of layers in the axial direction.
Bueyuekasik teaches a motor comprising: a rotor (13) configured to rotate around a rotating shaft (15), and including a magnetic material (10) generating rotational force by interacting with the plurality of stator coils (inherent to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the rotor), wherein the magnetic material (10) forms a band shape and configured to be continuously disposed in the circumferential direction, and wherein the magnetic material (10) is repeatedly arranged in an axial direction, forming a plurality of layers in the axial direction as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of providing a ring magnet can be produced easily and inexpensively.
Han teaches a stator (110) having a stator coil (112) repeatedly disposed in a circumferential direction and a magnetic material (130) generating rotational force by interacting with the stator coil (112) and forming a plurality of layers (131, 132) in the axial direction as shown in figures 2 and 3, for the advantageous benefit of improving the characteristics of the motor.
Nagate et al. teaches a plurality of stator coils (column 6, lines 60-62), for the advantageous benefit of providing effectively contributing to the rotation of the rotor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Karlovish by using the motor comprising: a stator having a plurality of stator coils repeatedly disposed in a circumferential direction; and a rotor configured to rotate around a rotating shaft and including a magnetic material generating rotational force by interacting with the plurality of stator coils, wherein the magnetic material forms a band shape and configured to be continuously disposed in the circumferential direction, and wherein the magnetic material is repeatedly arranged in an axial direction, forming a plurality of layers in the axial direction, as taught by Bueyuekasik ,Han and Nagate et al., to provide a ring magnet can be produced easily and inexpensively, improve the characteristics of the mobility device, improve the characteristics of the motor and provide effectively contributing to the rotation of the rotor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 15-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 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.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights