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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims and specification dated 1/27/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 were amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “peripheral portion comprising the at least one structured section is the inner edge of the hollow disc” of claim 4 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “11” has been used to designate both a center seen in FIG. 1 and a first periodic element seen in FIG. 6.
Reference character “12” has been used to designate both an inner hollow seen in FIG. 1 and a second periodic element seen in FIG. 6.
Reference character “21” has been used to designate both a periodic structure seen in FIG. 1 and a first periodic element seen in FIG. 6.
Reference character “22” has been used to designate both an unstructured section seen in FIG. 1 and a second periodic element seen in FIG. 6.
Reference character “23” has been used to designate both an orientation slot seen in FIG. 1 and a third periodic element seen in FIG. 6.
Reference character “85” has been used to designate both a stator and a rotor seen in FIG. 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description:
40 referring to a first lamination in page 8 line 15.
75 referring to a central rotor in page 12 line 14.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
17 in FIG. 1.
219 in FIG. 2.
81 and 82 in FIG. 7 and FIG. 8.
99 in FIG. 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology in the form of “said elementary lamination” in lines 4-5, “said periodic structure” in line 6, “said elementary lamination” in line 7, “said orientation slot” in line 9, “said non-structured section” in lines 10-11, and “said non-structured section” in line 12 and also implied phrasing in the form of “The invention relates to” in line 3. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 8 line 14 and line 15 it appears that the phrases “first elementary lamination 40” and “first lamination 40” were meant to be “first elementary lamination 410” and “first lamination 410” respectively.
In page 12 line 18 it appears that the phrase “voltage generator 95” was meant to be “voltage generator 99” in accordance with FIG. 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 lines 2-3 the phrase “the outer edge of the disc” should instead be “an outer edge of the disc” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 4 line 3 the phrase “the inner edge of the hollow disc” should instead be “an inner edge of the hollow disc” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 8 line 5 the phrase “periodic elements” should instead be “periodicity elements.”
In claim 8 line 6 the phrase “the intersection of the central axis with the plane of the lamination” should instead be “an intersection of a central axis of the lamination with a plane of the lamination” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. Claim 11 refers to both “A method of manufacturing a stack of laminations as claimed in claim 8” and “a plurality of elementary laminations as claimed in claim 1.” See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0338724 to Arakawa et al. (hereinafter Arakawa; cited by Applicant on 1/27/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Arakawa teaches an elementary lamination (FIG. 1, 10) in the shape of a disc, wherein a peripheral portion of said elementary lamination comprises at least one structured section having a periodic structure (FIG. 2, 15) comprising a succession of periodicity elements (FIG. 3B; b1, b2), said periodic structure being configured to align said elementary lamination in a helical stack of laminations (FIG. 6, 20; Paragraph [0048]),
the peripheral portion further comprising at least one unstructured section (FIG. 2, between portions 15), an orientation slot (FIG. 3B, b3) being arranged in the at least one unstructured section, said orientation slot being closer to a periodic structure on a first side of said unstructured section than to the periodic structure on a second side opposite the first side of said unstructured section (FIG. 3B: b3 is closer to b2 and b1 in a counterclockwise direction than the b2 and b1 of another periodic section 15 in a clockwise direction).
Regarding claim 2, Arakawa teaches the elementary lamination as claimed in claim 1, wherein the periodic structure comprises recesses extending in a radial direction of the disc (FIG. 2, 15).
Regarding claim 3, Arakawa teaches the elementary lamination as claimed in claim 1, wherein the peripheral portion comprising the at least one structured section is the outer edge of the disc (FIG. 2, 15).
Regarding claim 5, Arakawa teaches the elementary lamination as claimed in claim 1, comprising two structured sections having a periodic structure (FIG. 2; 15A, 15B), and two unstructured sections (FIG. 2, portions between 15).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0038591 to Darabana et al. (hereinafter Darabana).
Regarding claim 4, Arakawa teaches the elementary lamination as claimed in claim 1.
Arakawa does not teach an inner hollow, wherein the peripheral portion comprising the at least one structured section is the inner edge of the hollow disc.
However, Darabana teaches a lamination (FIG. 9; 31a, 31b) comprising an inner hollow (FIG. 9, 4) wherein the peripheral portion comprising the at least one structured section (FIG. 9; 70a, 70b) is angularly offset at the inner edge of the hollow disc (Paragraph [0145]).
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 the elementary lamination of Arakawa with the teachings of Darabana to implement the structured section in the inner peripheral portion of the lamination as it would similarly provide a stronger connection to the rotor shaft in this instance (Paragraph [0134]-[0135]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0254687 to Hoeber et al. (hereinafter Hoeber; cited by Applicant on 1/27/2025).
Regarding claim 6, Arakawa teaches a stack of laminations (FIG. 6; 20, 10) comprising a plurality of elementary laminations as claimed in claim 1 stacked coaxially.
Arakawa does not teach a first elementary lamination defining the bottom of the stack and successive elementary laminations being arranged above the first lamination, such that a first periodicity element of the periodic structure of each elementary lamination is disposed directly above a second periodicity element of the periodic structure of the underlying elementary lamination.
However, Hoeber teaches a first elementary lamination (FIG. 12, 11) defining the bottom of the stack and successive elementary laminations being arranged above the first lamination (FIG. 12; 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5), such that a first periodicity element (FIG. 11, 31) of the periodic structure (FIG. 11, 30) of each elementary lamination is disposed directly above a second periodicity element (FIG. 11, 32) of the periodic structure of the underlying elementary lamination (Paragraph [0068]-[0069]).
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 the stack of laminations of Arakawa with the teachings of Hoeber to place successive elementary laminations offset by one periodicity element as it advantageously helps position the laminations with respect to each other and achieve a desired magnetic flux operation (Paragraph [0068]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 7, Arakawa in view of Hoeber teaches the stack of laminations as claimed in claim 6, wherein Hoeber further teaches the number of elementary laminations (FIG. 12; 11, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5) being equal to the number of periodicity elements of the periodic structure in each structured section of each respective elementary lamination (FIG. 11; 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36).
Regarding claim 8, Arakawa in view of Hoeber teaches the stack of laminations as claimed in claim 6, wherein Hoeber further teaches each elementary lamination being angularly offset with respect to the following lamination (Paragraph [0068]-[0069]), an angle of offset being determined by a periodicity of the periodic structure and a diameter of the outer circumference of the elementary lamination such that the angle of offset is n times the angle formed by two adjacent periodic elements having as apex the intersection of the central axis with the plane of the lamination, n being an integer number (Paragraph [0068]-[0069]; the offset is by one periodicity element, meaning n would be 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Hoeber and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 2,608,682 to Herr (cited by Applicant on 1/27/2025).
Regarding claim 9, Arakawa in view of Hoeber teaches the stack of laminations as claimed in claim 6.
Arakawa in view of Hoeber does not teach a resolver comprising: a rotor comprising at least one stack of laminations, a stator configured to receive the rotor, and electrical connections configured to set up a variable electric field upon the rotation of the rotor with respect to the stator.
However, Herr teaches a resolver (FIG. 1, 10; Column 3 line 44) comprising: a rotor (FIG. 1, 12) comprising at least one stack of laminations (Column 3 lines 44-47), a stator (FIG. 1, 11) configured to receive the rotor, and electrical connections (FIG. 10; S1, S2) configured to set up a variable electric field upon the rotation of the rotor with respect to the stator (Column 6 lines 53-73).
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 the stack of laminations of Arakawa in view of Hoeber by implementing it into the resolver of Herr for the resolver of Herr to benefit from the features of the stack of laminations of Arakawa in view of Hoeber.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Hoeber and in further view of WIPO Publication No. 2021/240579 to Hidaka et al. (hereinafter Hidaka).
Regarding claim 10, Arakawa in view of Hoeber teaches the stack of laminations as claimed in claim 6.
Arakawa in view of Hoeber does not teach a rotary electric machine comprising: a rotor comprising at least one stack of laminations, a stator configured to receive the rotor, and electrical connections configured to set up a variable electric field upon the rotation of the rotor with respect to the stator.
However, Hidaka teaches a rotary electric machine (FIG. 1, 100) comprising: a rotor (FIG. 2, 30) comprising at least one stack of laminations (FIG. 2, 35; Paragraph [0034]), a stator (FIG. 2, 20) configured to receive the rotor, and electrical connections (FIG. 2, 22) configured to set up a variable electric field upon the rotation of the rotor with respect to the stator (Paragraph [0029]-[0031]).
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 the stack of laminations of Arakawa in view of Hoeber by implementing it into the rotary electric machine of Hidaka for the rotary electric machine of Hidaka to benefit from the features of the stack of laminations of Arakawa in view of Hoeber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (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 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights