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 02/24/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " An electric machine comprising a rotor with rotor laminations according to claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as Claim 1 already defines a singular rotor with a singular rotor lamination. It is unclear if the newly recited rotor in Claim 6 is a new rotor being introduced and it is also unclear if the singular disclosed rotor lamination in Claim 1 is independent from the plural rotor laminations introduced in the claim.
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)(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 1-3, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reiter (US2005028351A1).
Claim 1
Reiter teaches: A rotor lamination (12), comprising a first region (46a) and a second region (42a), wherein the first region (46a) is larger than the second region (42a), wherein the rotor lamination (12) comprises a first alloy (austenitic stainless steel, see para. 32-34) in the first region (46a) and a second alloy (nickel, iron, cobalt or an alloy, see para. 31) in the second region (42a), wherein at least the second alloy (nickel, iron, cobalt or an alloy, see para. 31) is soft-magnetic, and wherein the second alloy (nickel, iron, cobalt or an alloy, see para. 31) has a higher magnetic permeability (N, Fe, and Co all have higher magnetic permeabilities) than the first alloy (austenitic stainless steel, see para. 32-34).
Claim 2/1
Reiter teaches: The rotor lamination (12) according to claim 1, wherein the rotor lamination (12) has a plurality of cut-outs (recesses along outer circumference of 46a may be considered), wherein at least some of the cut-outs (recesses along outer circumference of 46a may be considered) form pockets for receiving permanent magnets (42a), and wherein at least parts of the second region (42a) lie between the pockets (at least between to radially opposed pockets) and an outer circumference of the rotor lamination (12).
Claim 3/2/1
Reiter teaches: The rotor lamination (12) according to claim 2, wherein the pockets are arranged in pairs (two circumferential adjacent recesses cutouts make a pair) in each case in a V-shape, so that they define a magnetic island between them, and wherein the second region (42a) comprises large parts of the magnetic islands.
Claim 6/1
Reiter teaches: An electric machine comprising a rotor with rotor laminations (12) according to claim 1, wherein the electric machine is a reluctance torque-assisted permanent magnet machine (see para. 45).
Claim 19/2/1
Reiter teaches: The rotor lamination (12) according to claim 2, wherein the second region (42a) is arranged as a circular ring, the circular ring defined radially outwardly by the outer circumference and radially inwardly by an innermost portion of the pockets.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter in view of Zhu (US 20200083788 A1).
Claim 7/6/1
Reiter teaches the electric machine of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose: A vehicle with at least one electric machine according to claim 6, wherein the electric machine is arranged as a front-wheel drive, center drive, underfloor drive and/or wheel hub drive in the vehicle.
Zhu teaches an electrified vehicle (12) including one or more electric machines (14) configured to provide propulsion and/or regenerative braking functions within a vehicle drivetrain (see para. 32-33) Zhu further teaches that the electric machine may be mechanically connected to a transmission and driveline components for propelling the vehicle (see para. 32-33). Additionally, Zhu teaches that the electric machine includes a rotor and stator assembly and may be implemented in hybrid or fully electric vehicles (see para. 39-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the electric machine of Reiter into the vehicle of Zhu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that electric machines are well known components used to provide propulsion and regenerative braking in electrified vehicles, as expressly taught by Zhu. Doing so would merely have involved using the known electric machine of Reiter in its ordinary and expected environment of use within a vehicle drivetrain to obtain the predictable result of providing vehicle propulsion and/or electrical energy generation. Additionally, substituting one known electric machine configuration for another in ana electrified vehicle would have represented the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, and 8-18 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.
Claim 4/3/2/1
Claim 1 is objected to.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reiter teaches: The rotor lamination (12) according to claim 3;
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, alone or in obvious combination, inter alia:
wherein the pockets are arranged in such a way that in each case two pairs of pockets are arranged in a V-shape and lying one above the other in the radial direction as a double V-shape, forming an outer V-shape and an inner V-shape, wherein the outer V-shape is positioned radially outward from the inner V-shape, further wherein the second region (42a) comprises a region between the pockets lying one above the other.
Reiter discloses a synchronous reluctance rotor having alternating magnetically conducting and non-conducting segments disposed within radially extending channels. However, Reiter does not disclose permanent magnet pockets arranged as inner and outer V-shaped pocket pairs, nor does it disclose a double V-shaped rotor configuration having radially stacked pocket pairs. Reiter is also silent to the second region positioned between pocket lying one above the other in the radial direction as claimed.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Reiter to include the claimed double V-shaped permanent magnet pocket arrangement because Reiter is directed to a synchronous reluctance rotor utilizing alternating magnetic segments to establish flux paths rather than a permanent magnet rotor employing radially stacked V-shaped magnet pockets. Such a modification would require a substantial redesign of the rotor architecture and would change the operating principles upon which Reiter relies for torque production.
Claims 5 and 18 stand objected to over all prior art based on their virtue of depending on claim 4.
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.”
Claim 8/1
Claim 8 is objected to.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reiter teaches: The rotor lamination according to claim 1;
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, alone or in obvious combination, inter alia:
A method for producing the rotor lamination (12) according to claim 1, comprising the following steps:
S1: creating a rotor lamination green part in a stencil printing process, comprising
S1a: applying a first suspension in a first region of the rotor lamination green part defined by a first mask and
S1b: applying a second suspension in a second region of the rotor lamination green part defined by a second mask,
Wherein the first region is larger than the second region,
wherein the first suspension contains a powder of a first alloy and the second suspension contains a powder of a second alloy, and
wherein at least the second alloy is soft-magnetic and has a higher magnetic permeability than the first alloy,
S2: sintering the rotor lamination green part to form a rotor lamination.
Reiter discloses forming a rotor from performed magnetically conducting and magnetically non-conducting powder metal segments that are assembled and subsequently sintered. However, Reiter does not disclose creating a rotor lamination green part by stencil printing, and does not disclose applying first and second suspensions through respective masks to define first and second regions, and does not disclose forming the claimed green part structure prior to sintering.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the reference to employ the claimed stencil printing process because the reference is directed to assembling discrete powder metal segments into a rotor configuration prior to sintering, rather than depositing suspensions through masks to form a patterned green part. Such a modification would require replacing Reiter’s disclosed manufacturing technique with a fundamentally different fabrication process, and the reference provides no teaching or suggestion that reference provides no teaching or suggestion that would lead one of ordinary skill in art to make such a change.
Claims 9-15 stand objected to over all prior art based on their virtue of depending on claim 8.
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.”
Claim 16/1
Claim 16 is objected to.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reiter teaches: The rotor lamination according to claim 1;
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, alone or in obvious combination, inter alia:
wherein the second alloy is a soft-magnetic high-performance alloy with a coercive field strength of less than 100 A/m and the first alloy is a soft-magnetic alloy with a coercive field strength between 100 A/m and 1000 A/m.
While Reiter discloses magnetically conducting materials comprising nickel, iron, cobalt, or alloys thereof and magnetically non-conducting materials comprising austenitic stainless steel, Reiter does not disclose the coercive field strengths of the respective materials. Further, the claim requires that the first alloy be a soft magnetic alloy having a coercive field strength between 100 A/m and 1000 A/m. Austenitic stainless steel is disclosed as a magnetically non-conducting material and is not identified as a soft magnetic alloy. Therefore, Reiter does not expressly or inherently disclose the coercivity limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 stands objected to over all prior art based on their virtue of depending on claim 16.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED F SECK whose telephone number is (571)272-4638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
/AHMED F SECK/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights