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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recited: “the rotor defining a trough extending circumferentially between and abutting adjacent ones of the plurality of permanent magnets, without any portion of the body of the rotor extending therebetween”.
It is noted that while Fig.1C of the instant application shows a trough 56. The drawing does not show the abutment between the magnet 52 and trough 56. Furthermore, the original disclosure also does not expressively disclose the negative limitation to exclude the body of the rotor between the magnet and the trough portion as newly amended.
Therefore, such amended limitation is new matter which was not disclosed in the original disclosure as filed.
Claims 18-20 are rejected for their dependency on claim 17.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 does not further limit claim 12 because all the limitation of claim 16 has already been claimed in claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier et al. (US 2002/0149275 A1) in view of Riyuu (JP 2003164085 A, the machine translation of which has been provided).
RE claim 1, Gauthier teaches an electromagnetic machine 10 (Fig.1) comprising:
a stator 100 that includes a back plate 120 and a plurality of electrical conductors 340 radially disposed on the back plate 120 (Figs.5, 7, 11);
a rotor 200 that includes a body 230 having an outer diameter corresponding to an inner diameter of the stator 100 and at least one magnet 270 having a first end disposed proximate the stator 100 and a second end disposed opposite the first end (Fig.18); and
an engaging member 290 disposed on a shaft 210 that extends axially relative to the rotor (see Fig.1 for engaging member 290 extend in axial direction), the engaging member 290 being configured to engage at least one recessed portion (via balancing screws, see ¶ 71)) of the rotor.
Gauthier does not teach the at least one magnet includes a plurality of segments adjacent one another and segmented in a radial direction.
Riyuu teaches the at least one magnet 5 includes a plurality of segments adjacent one another and segmented in a radial direction (Fig.6), doing so allows eddy current loss to be reduced (see translation ¶ 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gauthier by having the at least one magnet includes a plurality of segments adjacent one another and segmented in at least one of an axial direction or a radial direction, as taught by Riyuu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, as discussed above, Riyuu teaches the plurality of segments 5 of the at least one magnet 5 are further segmented in an axial direction (Fig.6)
RE claim 3/1, Gauthier in view of Riyuu has been discussed above. Gauthier further teaches the first end of the at least one magnet 270 has a width that is smaller than a width of the second end of the at least one magnet 270 (see Fig.18 and ¶ 61 for magnet has wedge shape and tapering radially outward).
RE claim 6/1, Gauthier in view of Riyuu has been discussed above. Gauthier further teaches the body 220 of the rotor 200 includes a non-conducting material (aluminum, see ¶ 58).
RE claim 7/1, Gauthier in view of Riyuu has been discussed above. Gauthier further teaches the non- conducting material includes aluminum (¶ 58).
RE claim 8/1, Gauthier in view of Riyuu has been discussed above. Gauthier further teaches the engaging member 290 includes a non-conducting material (i.e.: aluminum, see ¶ 71).
RE claim 9/7, Gauthier in view of Riyuu has been discussed above. Gauthier further teaches the non-conducting material includes aluminum (¶ 71).
RE claim 10/1, Gauthier in view of Riyuu has been discussed above. Gauthier further teaches the engaging member 290 is configured to direct flux generated by the at least one magnet 270 toward a corresponding air gap in the rotor 200 (According to instant application specification ¶ 85. The result of “directing magnetic flux” by the engaging member resulted from restricting movement of magnet. Therefore, because Gauthier disclosed in ¶ 70 that the engaging member 290 prevent the magnets 270 from moving axially. The engaging member 290 would be configured to direct flux of magnet 270 toward the radial gap via pole pieces 230).
RE claim 11/1, Gauthier in view of Riyuu has been discussed above. Gauthier further teaches the first end of the at least one magnet 270 includes a trapezoidal profile (¶ 61).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier in view of Riyuu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tajima et al. (US 2015/0091406 A1).
RE claim 4/1, Gauthier in view of Riyuu has been discussed above. Gauthier does not teach the at least one magnet includes a ferrite magnet or neodymium magnet.
Tajima suggests that ferrite magnet and neodymium magnets are both well-known in the art and can be chosen base on price and/or performance of the motor (¶ 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select either ferrite magnet or neodymium magnet, as suggested by Tajima, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier in view of Riyuu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pan et al. (US 2015/0372549 A1).
RE claim 5/1, Gauthier in view of Riyuu has been discussed above. Gauthier further teaches the body 230 of the rotor defines a recess (271) (Fig.18) configured to receive the at least one magnet 270.
Gauthier does not teach the body of the rotor further defines a lip overlying the recess and configured to retain the at least one magnet from moving radially outwardly.
Pan teaches the body 23 (Fig.2) of the rotor further defines a lip 26 overlying the recess 24 and configured to retain the at least one magnet 3 from moving radially outwardly (Fig.2). This structural arrangement of the hook blocks ensures that substantially all of the magnetic field generated by the iron core is absorbed by the permanent magnet which is disposed between the hook blocks. Thus, this structural arrangement of the hook blocks reduces magnetic leakage of the rotor core, lowers cogging torque ripple, and achieves a relatively large counter-electromotive force constant and a relatively smooth waveform of the counter-electromotive force.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gauthier in view of Riyuu by having the body of the rotor further defines a lip overlying the recess and configured to retain the at least one magnet from moving radially outwardly, as taught by Pan, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvin et al. (US 2017/0194838 A1) in view of Takahashi (US 2018/0034332 A1) and Gamble et al. (US 2008/0061637 A1).
RE claim 11, Marvin teaches an electric machine (Fig.5 and ¶ 37) comprising:
a rotor 24 configured to rotate (¶ 37);
a stator 20 including a core (21, 22a), the core including a yoke 21 having a plurality of teeth 22a extending radially from the yoke 21 to a distal end (DE) (see annotated Fig.5 below) adjacent to the rotor 24,
the core (21, 22a) defining a slot 36 between two adjacent teeth 22a of the plurality of teeth 22a;
a first winding (27a, 27b) extending through the slot 36 adjacent a first tooth 22a of the plurality of teeth 22a;
a second winding (27c, 27d) extending through the slot 36 adjacent a second tooth 22a of the plurality of teeth 22a;
a cooling channel (26a, 26b) extending through the slot 36 and configured to convey a coolant fluid for removing heat from the stator 20.
[AltContent: textbox (Space (SP))]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal end (DE) of teeth)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
775
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marvin does not teach:
said first/second windings are made of electrically-conductive material.
the cooling channel extends through a bottom cavity between the yoke and a bottom surface of at least one of the first winding or the second winding, wherein the at least one of the first winding or the second winding extends from the bottom surface in a radial direction away from the yoke.
RE (i) above, Takahashi teaches windings are made of electrically conductive material such as copper or aluminum (¶ 47) in order for current to flows in the winding and the stator can be excited by current supplied from the electrical power (¶ 71) such that the electrical machine can be operated thereof (¶ 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marvin by having said first/second windings are made of electrically-conductive material, as taught by Takahashi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Gamble teaches the slot (where coil 55 are disposed, see Fig.2) includes a bottom cavity 54 extending along the yoke 28 and radially away from the yoke 28 to the bottom surface of the at least one of the first winding 55 or the second winding 55; and wherein the cooling channel 54 extends through the bottom cavity (Fig.2).
Gamble also suggests that cooling channel 54 can be arranged at different locations between the core and windings (see Fig.2). The location of the cooling channel can be adjusted to improve cooling efficiency of the motor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marvin in view of Takahashi by having the slot includes a bottom cavity extending along the yoke and radially away from the yoke to the bottom surface of the at least one of the first winding or the second winding; and wherein the cooling channel extends through the bottom cavity, as taught by Gamble, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 13/12, Marvin in view of Takahashi and Gamble has been discussed above. Marvin further teaches the cooling channel (26a, 26b) further extends through a space (SP) between the distal ends (DE) of the teeth 22a and on a side of the first winding (27a, 27b) and the second winding (27c, 27d) radially adjacent to the rotor 24.
RE claim 14/12, Marvin in view of Takahashi and Gamble has been discussed above. Marvin further teaches a rotor 24 configured to rotate (Fig.5 and ¶ 37); wherein each of the teeth 22a extends radially from the yoke 21 to a distal end (DE) adjacent to the rotor 24; wherein the cooling channel 26a, 26b extends through the slot in the space between the distal ends of the teeth 22a and on the side of the first winding (27a, 27b) and the second winding (27c, 27d) radially adjacent to the rotor 24 (Fig.5).
RE claim 15/12, Marvin in view of Takahashi and Gamble has been discussed above. Marvin further teaches each of the teeth 22a defines a trunk with a generally rectangular cross-section extending radially from the yoke 21 to a distal end (DE); wherein the first winding (17a, 17b) and the second winding (17c, 17d) define a wedge-shaped space therebetween and within the slot 36; and wherein the cooling channel (26a, 26b) extends through the wedge-shaped space (SP).
RE claim 16/12, as discussed above, Gamble teaches the slot (where coil 55 are disposed, see Fig.2) includes a bottom cavity 54 extending along the yoke 28 and radially away from the yoke 28 to the bottom surface of the at least one of the first winding 55 or the second winding 55; and wherein the cooling channel 54 extends through the bottom cavity (Fig.2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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, Seye 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights