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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoshi et al. Design of Hybrid Magnet IPM Machine for Traction Applications (2024 International Conference on Electrical Machines (ICEM 9/1/2024, hereinafter Satoshi).
As to claim 1, Satoshi shows (FIG. 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
459
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a rotor 1 for an electric motor, the rotor 1 comprising:
a body 1 defining cavities 2, the cavities 2 being symmetrically arranged about a rotor axis in multiple poles;
a rare earth magnet RE in a radially outermost cavity 2 of the cavities 2 of each of the multiple poles; and
at each of the multiple poles, rare earth free magnets REF in the cavities 2 positioned inward of the radially outermost cavity 2, the rare earth free magnets REF centered on a radius of the rotor (rotor for machines in vehicles implies a motor abstract; rotor has an outer diameter implying multiple poles page 2, col.1 first paragraph, rare earth magnets RE in red, rare earth free magnets REF in blue FIG. 1) .
As to claim 2/1, Satoshi further shows (FIG. 2 above) wherein a shape of the rare earth magnet RE is essentially a first rectangular prism, and wherein bases of the first rectangular prism RE are parallel with each other and perpendicular to the radius of the rotor 1.
As to claim 3/1, Satoshi further shows (FIG. 2 above) wherein a shape of each of the rare earth free magnets REF is essentially a second rectangular prism, and wherein bases of the second rectangular prism are parallel with each other and perpendicular to the radius of the rotor.
As to claim 7/1, Satoshi further shows (FIG. 2 above) wherein a thickness of the rare earth magnet RE along the radius of the rotor 1 is less than a thickness of an uppermost rare earth free REF magnet of the rare earth free magnets REF along the radius of the rotor 1.
As to claim 9/1, Satoshi further shows (FIG. 2 above) wherein all of the rare earth free magnets REF are made of a common magnetic material (FeN page 1, col.2, last paragraph).
Claim(s) 10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanada (JP 2011083066 A).
As to claim 10, Sanada shows (FIG. 1, 5c):
PNG
media_image2.png
489
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A rotor 12 for an electric motor, the rotor 12 comprising:
a body 12 defining cavities 14a, 15a, 16a, the cavities 14a, 15a, 16a being symmetrically arranged about a rotor axis in multiple poles; and
at each of the multiple poles, rare earth free magnets 17, 18, 19 in the cavities 14a, 15a, 16a, the rare earth free magnets centered on a radius of the rotor 12, wherein respective widths of the rare earth free magnets 17, 18, 19 perpendicular to the radius of the rotor 12 and tangential to a direction of rotation increase toward the rotor axis, and wherein respective thicknesses of the rare earth free magnets 17, 18, 19 along the radius of the rotor 12 decrease toward the rotor axis (rotor in a motor para [0019]; FIG. 5c para [0025]).
As to claim 13/10, Sanada further shows (FIG. 1, 5c above) wherein all of the rare earth free magnets 17, 18, 19 are made of a common magnetic material (ferrite para [0018], [0024]).
As to claim 14/10, Sanada further shows (FIG. 1, 5c above) wherein the rotor 12 does not include any rare earth magnet (para [0018],[0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 4/1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi et al. Design of Hybrid Magnet IPM Machine for Traction Applications (2024 International Conference on Electrical Machines (ICEM 9/1/2024, hereinafter Satoshi) in view of Abhishek et al., Driving Cycle-Based Design and Optimization of Reduced Rare-Earth Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor for Electric Vehicle (IEEE 2nd Industrial electronics society annual on-line conference (ONCON 12/8/2023, hereinafter Abhishek).
As to claim 4/1, Satoshi was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for wherein respective widths of the rare earth free magnets perpendicular to the radius of the rotor and tangential to a direction of rotation increase toward the rotor axis.
Abhishek shows (FIG. 5d):
PNG
media_image3.png
654
725
media_image3.png
Greyscale
respective widths of the rare earth free magnets REF increase toward the rotor axis.
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 rotor of Satoshi to have respective widths of the rare earth free magnets REF perpendicular to the radius of the rotor 1 and tangential to a direction of rotation increase toward the rotor axis as taught by Abhishek, for the advantageous benefit of reducing a ratio of the volume of RE magnets to the volume of REF magnets as taught by Abhishek (page 5, col. 1, paragraph B. Optimization).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not show or suggest the combinations of magnet materials and geometries recited in claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights