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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada (US 20140327329) in view of Kim (US 20130038163).
1. Kitada teraches:
Rotor laminated core 110 for a rotor 100 of an electric machine (a rotor is intended to be used in an electric machine, MPEP 2112 and 2111.02), which rotor laminated core has a plurality of rotor laminations/steel plates 112 which are stacked axially one on the other and each have a recess (annotated figure 1 below),
wherein the recesses form a magnet pocket/hole portion 150 for receiving a rotor magnet 120,
wherein the rotor laminated core has a terminal lamination 114 which is arranged on the axial side of the rotor laminated core (since the magnet is inside of it, figs 4 & 5) and has a further recess which is axially aligned with the recess in the adjacent rotor lamination (since the magnet is inside of it, figs 4 & 5); but does not teach that the terminal lamination is narrowed with respect to the recess in the adjacent rotor lamination.
PNG
media_image1.png
671
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches that the terminal lamination/magnet support rotor core member 101’ is narrowed (via flamge unit 103b) with respect to the recess (of Kitada) in the adjacent rotor lamination (Kim annotated fig 4 below) to provide further support of the magnet inside of the rotor core which improves the electric machines reliability.
PNG
media_image2.png
349
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention as effectively filed to modify the invention of Kitada such that the terminal lamination is narrowed with respect to the recess in the adjacent rotor lamination, as taught by Kim so as to improve the reliability of the electric machine.
2. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Rotor laminated core according to Claim 1, wherein the recess (of Kitada) in the terminal lamination (of Kim) is formed identically to the recess (of Kitada) in the adjacent rotor lamination (of Kitada), apart from one or more projections/flange unit 103b (of Kim) which form the narrowing and project into the recess (of Kitada) in the terminal lamination (of Kim).
3. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Rotor laminated core according to Claim 2, wherein the recess (of Kitada) in the terminal lamination (of Kim) has two mutually opposite edge sections (of Kitada) and the projections (of Kim) are arranged on both edge sections (of Kitada).
5. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Rotor laminated core according to Claim 2, wherein each projection (of Kim) has an end section in the form of a segment of a circle/arc-shaped (see ref numeral 103b, fig 4 above).
6. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Rotor for an electric machine, having a rotor shaft 170 (of Kitada) and a rotor laminated core (of Kitada) according to Claim 1 arranged on the rotor shaft (fig 5 of Kitada), wherein a rotor magnet 120, which bears axially against the narrowing (of Kim), is received in the magnet pocket (of Kitada).
7. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Rotor according to Claim 6, wherein a free space (the free space is occupied by the fixing member 130, Kitada fig 5) is formed between the rotor magnet and the plurality of rotor laminations stacked axially one on the other (Kitada figs 3 & 5), and the recess in the terminal lamination (Kitada figs 3 & 5) is axially aligned with the free space (Kitada figs 3 & 5).
9. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Rotor according to Claim 6, wherein the rotor magnets are potted using a potting compound/fixing member 130 (it is a resinous compound).
10. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Electric machine having a rotor according to Claim 6 and a stator (The rotating electric machine inherently has a stator, Kitada title and MPEP 2112), the rotor being rotatably mounted with respect to the stator (also inherent since Kitada discloses a rotor, MPEP 2112).
12. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Production method for a rotor of an electric machine according to Claim 6, comprising the steps of orienting a rotor laminated core 110 (of Kitada), so that the rotation axis of the rotor laminated core runs vertically and the terminal lamination 114 (of Kitada) of the rotor laminated core is arranged on the bottom side of the rotor laminated core (fig 5 of Kitada), inserting a rotor magnet 120 (of Kitada) into the magnet pocket of the oriented rotor laminated core, so that the rotor magnet bears axially against the narrowing (flange unit 103b of Kim), orienting the rotor shaft 170 (of Kitada), so that the rotor shaft runs vertically (fig 5 of Kitada), and pushing the oriented rotor laminated core (of Kitada) with the rotor magnet onto the rotor shaft (of Kitada).
14. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Rotor laminated core according to Claim 3, wherein each projection (of Kim) has an end section in the form of a segment of a circle/arc-shaped (see ref numeral 103b, fig 4 above).
15. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Rotor for an electric machine, a rotor shaft 170 (of Kitada) and a rotor laminated core (of Kitada) according to Claim 2 arranged on the rotor shaft (fig 5 of Kitada), wherein a rotor magnet 120, which bears axially against the narrowing (of Kim), is received in the magnet pocket (of Kitada).
17. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Rotor according to Claim 7, wherein the rotor magnets are potted using a potting compound/fixing member 130 (it is a resinous compound).
18. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Electric machine having a rotor according to Claim 7 and a stator (The rotating electric machine inherently has a stator, Kitada title and MPEP 2112), the rotor being rotatably mounted with respect to the stator (also inherent since Kitada discloses a rotor, MPEP 2112).
19. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Production method for a rotor of an electric machine according to Claim 7, comprising the steps of orienting a rotor laminated core 110 (of Kitada), so that the rotation axis of the rotor laminated core runs vertically and the terminal lamination 114 (of Kitada) of the rotor laminated core is arranged on the bottom side of the rotor laminated core (fig 5 of Kitada), inserting a rotor magnet 120 (of Kitada) into the magnet pocket of the oriented rotor laminated core, so that the rotor magnet bears axially against the narrowing (flange unit 103b of Kim), orienting the rotor shaft 170 (of Kitada), so that the rotor shaft runs vertically (fig 5 of Kitada), and pushing the oriented rotor laminated core (of Kitada) with the rotor magnet onto the rotor shaft (of Kitada).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada in view of Kim and in further view of Lin et al. (US 20190207492).
11. Kitada in view of Kim teach:
Vehicle having an electric machine according to Claim 10; but does not teach that the electric machine is provided for driving the vehicle.
Lin et al. teach that the electric machine is provided for driving the vehicle (para 0003). This would improve the versatility of the electric machine of Kitada.
Thuis, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Kitada being effectively filed to modify it such that the electric machine is provided for driving the vehicle, as taught by Lin et al. so as to improve the versatility of the electric machine.
Claim(s) 8, 13 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada in view of Kim and in further view of Jurkovic et al. (US 8884485).
8. Kitada has been discussed above, re claim 6; but does not teach having a further rotor laminated core which corresponds to the rotor laminated core and is arranged on the rotor shaft, wherein magnetic poles of the two rotor laminated cores are rotated with respect to each other about the rotor shaft.
Jurkovic et al. teaches that having a further rotor laminated core/ring segments 60 & 62 which corresponds to the rotor laminated core 58 and is arranged on the rotor shaft (of Kitada), wherein magnetic poles/magnets 28 of the two rotor laminated cores are rotated with respect to each other about the rotor shaft (fig 3) to reduce torque ripple (col 1 3rd para) which improves the motor’s reliability.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Kitada was effectively filed to modify it such that having a further rotor laminated core which corresponds to the rotor laminated core and is arranged on the rotor shaft, wherein magnetic poles of the two rotor laminated cores are rotated with respect to each other about the rotor shaft, as taught by Jurkovic et al. so as to improve the reliability of the motor.
13. Kitada has been discussed above, re claim 12; but does not teach having a further rotor laminated core which corresponds to the rotor laminated core and is arranged on the rotor shaft, wherein magnetic poles of the two rotor laminated cores are rotated with respect to each other about the rotor shaft.
Jurkovic et al. teaches that having a further rotor laminated core/ring segments 60 & 62 which corresponds to the rotor laminated core 58 and is arranged on the rotor shaft (of Kitada), wherein magnetic poles/magnets 28 of the two rotor laminated cores are rotated with respect to each other about the rotor shaft (fig 3) to reduce torque ripple (col 1 3rd para) which improves the motor’s reliability.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Kitada was effectively filed to modify it such that having a further rotor laminated core which corresponds to the rotor laminated core and is arranged on the rotor shaft, wherein magnetic poles of the two rotor laminated cores are rotated with respect to each other about the rotor shaft, as taught by Jurkovic et al. so as to improve the reliability of the motor.
16. Kitada has been discussed above, re claim 7; but does not teach having a further rotor laminated core which corresponds to the rotor laminated core and is arranged on the rotor shaft, wherein magnetic poles of the two rotor laminated cores are rotated with respect to each other about the rotor shaft.
Jurkovic et al. teaches that having a further rotor laminated core/ring segments 60 & 62 which corresponds to the rotor laminated core 58 and is arranged on the rotor shaft (of Kitada), wherein magnetic poles/magnets 28 of the two rotor laminated cores are rotated with respect to each other about the rotor shaft (fig 3) to reduce torque ripple (col 1 3rd para) which improves the motor’s reliability.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Kitada was effectively filed to modify it such that having a further rotor laminated core which corresponds to the rotor laminated core and is arranged on the rotor shaft, wherein magnetic poles of the two rotor laminated cores are rotated with respect to each other about the rotor shaft, as taught by Jurkovic et al. so as to improve the reliability of the motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights