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 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, 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranjan et al. (US20160352201, “Ranjan”).
Re claim 1, Ranjan discloses an electric motor 20, comprising:
a rotor 40 having a first end (figs 1-3, [0015] & [0017], end w/ 60);
at least one spreader comprising a conductive material configured to be inserted in the rotor (figs 2-3 & below, [0016-0017], spreader is either: 50 except for 54; or portions of 50 indicated below), the at least one spreader having a first surface forming a portion of the first end of the rotor (figs 2-3 & below, either: 56 or portion of 56 of each spreader indicated below);
a blade 54 located on the surface of the at least one spreader (figs 2-3 & below, w/ respect to fig below at least a portion of one blade is on the spreader surface);
wherein the blade is configured to dissipate heat generated by the rotor ([0017]).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3, Ranjan discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the rotor includes a second spreader (figs 2-3 & above for claim 1, where spreaders are as indicated in annotated fig above for claim 1), wherein the second spreader comprises a conductive material ([0017[), the second spreader configured to be inserted in the rotor (figs 2-3), the second spreader having a first surface that forms a portion of the first end of the rotor (figs 2-3 & above for claim 1), wherein the first surface of the second spreader has a blade 54 (figs 2-3 & above for claim 1, w/ respect to fig above for claim 1 at least a portion of one blade is on the spreader surface).
Re claim 9, Ranjan discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the motor is an induction machine ([0013]).
Re claim 10, Ranjan discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the at least one spreader has a second surface forming a portion of a second end of the rotor (figs 2-3 & above for claim 1, either 58 or similar to the first side of fig above for claim 1), wherein the second surface has a blade 54 (figs 2-3 & above for claim 1, either blade on 58 or blade on portion of 58 similar to 1st surface above for claim 1).
Re claim 15, Ranjan discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the spreader is a discrete part of the rotor (figs 2-3).
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Major (US20160329760, “Major”).
Re claim 1, Major discloses an electric motor 10, comprising:
a rotor 12 having a first end (figs 1-2 & 8, [0041], end in fig 2);
at least one spreader comprising a conductive material configured to be inserted in the rotor (figs 12-14 & 16-18, [0136], [0152] & [0156], spreader 22 except for 204), the at least one spreader having a first surface forming a portion of the first end of the rotor end of 22 shown in fig 2);
a blade 204 located on the surface of the at least one spreader 22 (figs 2, 12-14 & 16-18);
wherein the blade 204 is configured to dissipate heat generated by the rotor ([0156], states 22 can be made of aluminum & inherently transfers heat from rotor to air).
Re claims 7 and 8, Major discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses:
the motor is a permanent magnet machine (fig 12, [0136]); and
the permanent magnet machine includes a segmented magnet 16 (fig 12, magnets separated from each other).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuhara et al. (US20040113508, “Yasuhara”).
Re claim 16, Yasuhara discloses an electric motor, comprising:
a rotor 5 having a first end (figs 1-2, [0025], 1st end w/ 7c);
at least one spreader 7a comprising a conductive material configured to be inserted in the rotor (fig 2, [0025] & [0031]), the at least one spreader 7a having a first surface forming a portion of the first end of the rotor (figs 2-6 & below, surface indicated below);
an array of micro-features located on the surface of the at least one spreader 7a (figs 5-6 & below, [0039-0043], micro features are formed by curves of weld portion 7f formed by friction welding tool 11);
wherein the array of micro-features is configured to dissipate heat generated by the rotor (figs 5-6, [0031], since 7a is formed from aluminum micro features & 7a inherently dissipate heat from rotor).
PNG
media_image2.png
340
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 17, Yasuhara discloses claim 16 as discussed above and further discloses the at least one spreader 7a has a second surface forming a portion of a second end of the rotor 5 (fig 2, [0036] & [0046], 2nd surface w/ 7b similar to 1st surface), wherein the second surface has an array of micro- features (figs 2, 4-6 & above for claim 16, in a similar manner as 1st surface).
Re claim 18, Yasuhara discloses claim 16 as discussed above and further discloses the rotor 5 includes a second spreader 7a (fig 2, [0025], another 7a), wherein the second spreader comprises a conductive material ([0031]), the second spreader configured to be inserted in the rotor (fig 2), the second spreader having a first surface that forms a portion of the first end of the rotor (figs 5-6 & above for claim 16, similar to 1st surface of 1st spreader), wherein the first surface of the second spreader has an array of micro-features (figs 2, 4-6 & above for claim 16, in a similar manner as 1st micro-features).
Re claim 19, Yasuhara discloses claim 18 as discussed above and further discloses the at least one spreader 7a has a second surface forming a portion of a second end of the rotor 5 (fig 2, [0036] & [0046], 2nd surface w/ 7b similar to 1st surface) and the second spreader 7a includes a second surface forming a portion of a second end of the rotor 5 (fig 2, [0036] & [0046], 2nd surface w/ 7b similar to 1st surface), wherein the second surface of the first spreader 7a has an array of micro-features (figs 2, 4-6 & above for claim 16, in a similar manner as 1st surface) and the second surface of the second spreader 7a has an array of micro- features (figs 2, 4-6 & above for claim 16, in a similar manner as 1st surface).
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 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.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan in view of Nagayama et al. (US20040150270, “Nagayama”).
Re claim 2, Ranjan discloses claim 1 as discussed above but is silent with respect to an array of micro-features (note: using interpretation of micro-feature as in parent application 15480607-see 9/27/24 final rejection, pg 3, last two lns to pg 4, lns 1-3) located on the first surface of the at least one spreader (note: employing version of spreader of claim 1 that is 50 except for 54).
Nagayama discloses an array of micro-features 109a’ located on the surface between blades 109a (figs 33a-b, [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the rotor of Ranjan to comprise micro-features on the surface between blades, as disclosed by Nagayama, in order to enhance heat exchange function, as taught by Nagayama ([0125]). It is pointed out that Ranjan in view of Nagayama disclose an array of micro-features located on the first surface of the at least one spreader since: Ranjan discloses the surface between blades 54 is the first surface of the spreader; and Nagayama discloses the micro-features 109a’ is on the surface between blades 109a.
Re claim 11, Ranjan discloses claim 10 as discussed above but is silent with respect to an array of micro-features located on the first surface and the second surface of the at least one spreader (note: employing version of spreader of claim 1 that is 50 except for 54).
Nagayama discloses an array of micro-features 109a’ located on the surface between blades 109a (figs 33a-b, [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first surface and the second surface of Ranjan to comprise micro-features located on the surface between blades, as disclosed by Nagayama, in order to enhance heat exchange function, as taught by Nagayama ([0125]). It is pointed out that Ranjan in view of Nagayama disclose an array of micro-features located on the first surface and the second surface of the at least one spreader since: Ranjan discloses the surface between blades 54 is the surface of the first and second surfaces of the spreader; and Nagayama discloses the micro-features 109a’ is on the surface between blades 109a.
Claims 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan in view of Nagayama in further view of Yagi et al. (JP2007124796, “Yagi”).
Re claim 4, Ranjan discloses claim 3 as discussed above but is silent with respect to an array of micro-features located on the first surface of the at least one spreader and an array of micro-features located on the first surface of the second spreader (note: spreaders are as indicated in annotated fig above for claim 1).
Nagayama discloses a micro-feature 109a’ located on the surface between blades 109a (figs 33a-b, [0125]), the micro-features 109a’ formed by projections (figs 33a-b, [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the surface between blades of Ranjan to comprise a micro-feature, as disclosed by Nagayama, in order to enhance heat exchange function, as taught by Nagayama ([0125]).
Yagi discloses forming micro-features form pin shaped projections 27a (fig 6, [0046]) or projections similar to the projections 28a similar to the projections of Nagayama (fig 7, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known element (single micro feature on surface between blades as disclosed by Nagayama) for another known equivalent element (plurality or an array of pin shaped micro features as disclosed by Yagi; equivalence taught by Yagi) resulting in the predictable result of improving heat dissipation performance by increasing surface area and preventing noise (as taught by Yagi, [0046-0047]).
It is pointed out that Ranjan in view of Nagayama and Yagi discloses an array of micro-features located on the first surface and the second surface of the at least one spreader since: Ranjan discloses part of the surface between blades 54 includes the first and second surfaces of the spreaders (figs 1-3 & above for claim 1); Nagayama discloses providing a micro-feature 109a’ as a projection on the surface between blades 109a to enhance heat exchange function (fig 33a-b); and Yagi discloses substituting a projection (single micro-feature) with a plurality of pin 27a shaped projection (array of micro-features; figs 6-7); resulting in at least some of the pin shaped micro-features provided on the respective first and second surface of Ranjan (see figs 1-3 & annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
394
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan in view of Nagayama and Yang.
Re claim 11, Ranjan discloses claim 10 as discussed above but is silent with respect to an array of micro-features located on the first surface and the second surface of the at least one spreader (note: employing version of spreader of claim 1 as indicated in annotated fig above for claim 1).
Nagayama discloses a micro-feature 109a’ located on the surface between blades 109a (figs 33a-b, [0125]), the micro-features 109a’ formed by projections (figs 33a-b, [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the surface between blades on first and second ends of the rotor of Ranjan to comprise a micro-feature, as disclosed by Nagayama, in order to enhance heat exchange function, as taught by Nagayama ([0125]).
Yagi discloses forming micro-features form pin shaped projections 27a (fig 6, [0046]) or projections similar to the projections 28a similar to the projections of Nagayama (fig 7, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known element (single micro feature on surface between blades as disclosed by Nagayama) for another known equivalent element (plurality or an array of pin shaped micro features as disclosed by Yagi; equivalence taught by Yagi) resulting in the predictable result of improving heat dissipation performance by increasing surface area and preventing noise (as taught by Yagi, [0046-0047]).
It is pointed out that Ranjan in view of Nagayama and Yagi discloses an array of micro-features located on the first surface and the second surface of the at least one spreader since: Ranjan discloses part of the surface between blades 54 includes the first and second surfaces of the spreaders (figs 1-3 & above for claim 1); Nagayama discloses providing a micro-feature 109a’ as a projection on the surface between blades 109a to enhance heat exchange function (fig 33a-b); and Yagi discloses substituting a projection (single micro-feature) with a plurality of pin 27a shaped projection (array of micro-features; figs 6-7); resulting in at least some of the pin shaped micro-features provided on the respective first and second surface of Ranjan (see figs 1-3 & annotated fig 1 above for claim 4).
Re claim 12, Ranjan in view of Nagayama and Yagi disclose claim 11 as discussed above and further discloses a second spreader (Ranjan, figs 2-3 & above for claim 1, where spreaders are as indicated in annotated fig above for claim 1), wherein the second spreader comprises a conductive material (Ranjan, [0017[), the second spreader configured to be inserted in the rotor (Ranjan, figs 2-3), the second spreader having a first surface that forms a portion of the first end of the rotor (Ranjan, figs 2-3 & above for claim 1), wherein the first surface of the second spreader has a blade 54 (Ranjan, figs 2-3 & above for claim 1, w/ respect to fig above for claim 1 at least a portion of one blade is on the spreader surface), the second spreader having a second surface that forms a portion of the second end of the rotor (Ranjan, (figs 2-3 & above for claim 1, similar to the first surface),
the first surface of the second spreader has an array of micro-features and a blade (Ranjan figs 2-3 & above for claims 1 & 4 discloses 1st surface w/ blade 54; Nagayama discloses micro feature between blades; Yagi fig 6 discloses array of micro-features), and the second surface of the second spreader has an array of micro-features and a blade (Ranjan figs 2-3 & above for claims 1 & 4 discloses 1st surface w/ blade 54; Nagayama discloses micro feature between blades; Yagi fig 6 discloses array of micro-features), said blades of the at least one spreader and the second spreader are configured to waft heat dissipated from said arrays of micro-features (Ranjan, [0017], fig 6).
Re claims 13 and 14, Ranjan in view of Nagayama and Yagi disclose claim 12 as discussed above. Ranjan further discloses:
the blades 54 are integral with the spreaders (figs 2-3); and
the blades 54 are integral with the rotor 40 (fig 3, since 54 & 40 rotate together they are integral).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan in view of Wilhelm (GB282005, “Wilhelm”).
Re claims 5 and 6, Ranjan discloses claim 1 as discussed above but is silent with respect to:
a first end cap, the first end cap including an array of micro-features; and
a second and cap, the second end cap including an array of micro-features.
Wilhelm discloses a first end cap 5, the first end cap including an array of micro-features 8 (fig 1, pg 1, lns 74-84 & lns 86-98); and
a second and cap 6, the second end cap including an array of micro-features 8 (fig 1, pg 1, lns 74-84 & lns 86-98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the motor of Ranjan to comprise a first end cap, the first end cap including an array of micro-features; and a second and cap, the second end cap including an array of micro-features, as disclosed by Wilhelm, in order to increase the cooling surface, as taught by Wilhelm.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12231023 in view of Ranjan.
Claim 1 of instant application
Claim 1 of US12231023
An electric motor, comprising: a rotor having a first end;
a blade located on the surface of the at least one spreader; wherein the blade is configured to dissipate heat generated by the rotor.
at least one spreader comprising a conductive material configured to be inserted in the rotor,
the at least one spreader having a first surface forming a portion of the first end of the rotor;
An electric motor comprising: a rotor having a first end,
the rotor rotating around an axis;
at least one blade; and a plurality of arrays of micro-features; wherein the at least one blade and the plurality of arrays of micro-features are located on the first end of the rotor; wherein the end of the rotor defines a surface that extends from an inner circumference to an outer circumference, said inner circumference defining an area in which a shaft can be positioned, said outer circumference defining an outer edge of said end of the rotor; wherein the at least one blade is positioned on the surface, the blade extending between the inner circumference and the outer circumference, the blade having a height extending outwardly from the surface in an axial direction, and the blade having a width that is less than the length of the inner circumference; wherein the plurality of arrays of micro-features are positioned on the surface; wherein heat generated by the rotor is dissipated by the at least one blade and the plurality of arrays of micro-features; and
wherein the rotor includes a plurality of spreaders, each spreader comprises a conductive material, each spreader is configured to be inserted in the rotor, each spreader has an end that forms part of the surface,
and the end of each spreader has one of the plurality of arrays of micro-features.
US12231023 claim 1 discloses claim 1 except for the blade is located on the surface of the at least one spreader.
Specifically US12231023 claim 1 discloses the rotor has a surface on one side of the rotor, the spreader has an end that forms part of the surface of the rotor and the blade is located on the surface of the rotor.
Ranjan discloses the blade 54 is located on the surface of the at least one spreader (figs 2-3 & above for claim 1, [0016-0017], spreader is portions of 50 indicated above for claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the blade of US12231023 claim 1 to be located on the surface of the spreader, as disclosed by Ranjan, in order to position the blade on one of two locations on the rotor end (rotor surface or spreader surface). As seen in Ranjan the blade 54 is located on both the surface of the rotor and the surface of the spreader (figs 2-3 & above for claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights