DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because element 50 in Figure 1 doesn’t appear to have a description in the Specification. It appears label “50” is directed to a rotor shaft “250” in Figure 2. Clarification requested. Correction is required.
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.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 109324300A by Li et al. (Li hereafter - please refer to the English translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a measurement system for characterizing a magnetic flux density of a magnet comprising:
a magnetic field probe (9+32, Figs 14 and 16), including a Gauss meter (32, see page 19, paragraph 2, line 4), for detecting a plurality of magnetic flux density magnitudes at a plurality of points proximate to a surface of the magnet (detecting magnetic flux density related to permanent magnet rotor 23; see page 10 line 8);
a magnet holder (magnet support clamp 22 in Fig. 13) for mechanically restraining the magnet (as illustrated in Figure 13; see page 10, last four lines);
a positioner (14 or 10+11+12) for positioning the magnet with respect to the magnetic field probe at each of the plurality of points (as positioner 14 rotates, the probe is able to probe different points in the permanent magnet rotor);
a processor (personal computer 24) for receiving each of the plurality of magnetic flux density magnitudes and for generating a spatial representation (see page 5, last six lines) of the magnetic flux density of the magnet (the system measures magnetic flux at a given point of the permanent magnet rotor 23 to obtain a field distribution or “data”, as explained for example in page 19, third and fourth paragraph); and
a memory (memory within personal computer 24) for receiving the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density of the magnet from the processor and for storing the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density of the magnet (Although not explicitly mentioned, the personal computer has a storing module and thus, it inherently comprises a memory unit that is capable of performing the intended function of storing the data. See for example page 16, line 20).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches a method for characterizing a magnetic flux density of a magnet comprising:
restraining, by a magnet holder (magnet support clamp 22), the magnet (permanent magnet within rotor 23);
positioning, by a magnet holder positioner (14), the magnet with respect to a magnetic field probe (9+23) at each of a plurality of points proximate to a surface of the magnet (detecting magnetic flux density related to permanent magnet rotor 23; see page 10 line 8) and ;
detecting, by the magnetic field probe, a plurality of magnetic flux density magnitudes at the plurality of points proximate to the surface of the magnet;
generating a spatial representation of the magnetic flux density of the magnet by a processor in response to the plurality of magnetic flux density magnitudes (three-dimensional representation according to the Bx, By, Bz fields in the X, Y and Z directions- see page 19, last paragraph); and
storing the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density of the magnet by a memory in response to receiving the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density of the magnet from the processor (See Figure 16, data storage module 28).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Li teaches the measurement system for characterizing the magnetic flux density of the magnet of claim 1, wherein the positioner (10+11+12) is a three-dimensional positioner (x-axis, y-axis and z-axis; see page 10, first line) for moving the magnetic field probe within a three-dimensional space proximate to the surface of the magnet.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Li teaches the measurement system for characterizing the magnetic flux density of the magnet of claim 1, wherein the positioner (14) is configured to rotate the magnet holder and to tilt the magnet holder radially from an axis orthogonal to the surface of the magnet (see page 10, lines 2-3).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Li teaches the measurement system for characterizing the magnetic flux density of the magnet of claim 1, wherein the positioner (14 or 10+11+12) is configured to vary a distance between the magnet holder (22) and the magnetic field probe (9) along an axis orthogonal to the surface of the magnet (because the claim doesn’t define which surface of the magnet the claim refers to, any surface of the magnet can be interpreted to mean the recited “surface of the magnet” and thus, any distance from the magnet may be interpreted to the distance along an axis orthogonal to said surface).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Li teaches the measurement system for characterizing the magnetic flux density of the magnet of claim 1, wherein the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density of the magnet (data collected by probe 9+32) is stored in the memory and is correlated to a cartesian coordinate system (Bx, By, Bz along the X, Y and Z directions. See page 19, last paragraph).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Li teaches the measurement system for characterizing the magnetic flux density of the magnet of claim 1, wherein the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density of the magnet is stored in the memory and is correlated to a polar coordinate system (spatial representation Bx, By, Bz along the X, Y and Z directions. See page 19, last paragraph).
The examiner notes that the recitation “the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density of the magnet is stored in the memory and is correlated to a polar coordinate system”, doesn’t require the probe or processor to perform a conversion or to generate data in the polar coordinate system, it only requires the spatial representation to be correlated to a polar coordinate system. Li teaches the system processes and stores data related to magnetic field strength along the x, y and z directions. The data in cartesian coordinates has an equivalent in polar coordinates. It can be converted to a polar system by calculating radius using the square root of squared x added to squared y, and calculating angle in radians using the arctangent of y divided by x. Because the coordinates x, y, z are correlated to their equivalent polar coordinates, the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density of the magnet is correlated to a polar coordinate system
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the claim describes functions the claimed processor is “operative to perform” to “predict a future representation of the magnetic flux density” or “to predict a performance of a permanent magnet synchronous motor”. As presented, the claims do not define operations, calculations or manipulation of data that the claimed processor is programmed to perform or, that is configured to perform, but rather functions that the processor may be operated to accomplish. It appears to describe the intended use of the processor, given some data input (spatial representation of flux density). The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Li teaches all structural elements as recited including a processor that is capable of manipulating data related to the spatial representation of magnetic flux, and because the processor may be readily used in the manner intended, the prior art anticipates the claim. The examiner suggests describing structural elements within the processor that differentiate it from that of the prior art.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the claim describes functions the claimed processor is “operative to perform” to “predict a future representation of the magnetic flux density” or “to predict a performance of a permanent magnet synchronous motor”. As presented, the claims do not describe method steps, but rather functions that the processor may be operated to accomplish. It appears to describe the intended use of the processor, given some data input (spatial representation of flux density). The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Li teaches all structural elements as recited including a processor that is capable of manipulating data related to the spatial representation of magnetic flux, and because the processor may be readily used in the manner intended, the prior art anticipates the claim. The examiner suggests describing positive steps accomplished by the processor that differentiate it from that of the prior art.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Li teaches the measurement system for characterizing the magnetic flux density of the magnet of claim 1, further including a display (within 24) for displaying a graphical representation of the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density (See page 19, last paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination an apparatus for characterizing a performance of a permanent magnet synchronous motor comprising a processor for receiving each of the plurality of magnetic flux density magnitudes and for generating a spatial representation of a magnetic flux density of the permanent magnet and for comparing the spatial representation of the magnetic flux density to the plurality of spatial representations of magnetic flux densities to estimate the performance of the permanent magnet synchronous motor in response to at least one of the plurality of permanent magnet synchronous motor performance parameters, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim 20, the claim is allowed as it incorporates the allowable subject matter in claim 19 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 4,465,975 by Porter et al., directed to a technique for measuring the magnetic field of a sample, including control of the relative scanning movement, and of the transducer/sample spacing. See figure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
595
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent US 6,611,142 by Jones et al., directed to an apparatus for measuring the magnetic field distribution of a magnetic sample includes a magnetic field sensor arrangement scanned along a predetermined scan pattern. The apparatus then acquires sampling data from the sensor arrangement, the sampled data providing a representation of the magnetic field distribution of the magnetic sample. See figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
530
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent US 3,939,404 by Tait, directed to a method of testing for and preventing the possibility of cracking, spalling or like defects in a rolling mill roll surface the surface is scanned to provide a representation of the hardness and/or the magnetic conductivity. The method uses measurements of magnetic conductivity in eddy current testing. See figure below:
PNG
media_image3.png
394
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2022/0291297 by Tanaka et al., directed to a magnetic detection module is provided with one or more magnetic sensors that detect magnetic flux, a case in which the magnetic sensors are housed, and a cap that can be attached to an end of the case and is provided with a sealing member. The magnetic detection module can be attached to the housing of the first specification with the cap not attached to the case, and can be attached to the housing of the second specification through a sealing member with the cap attached to the case. See figure below:
PNG
media_image4.png
709
869
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights