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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
NOTE: Previously presented claims 23-25 are also considered withdrawn as they depend on withdrawn claim 14. It is requested that the status identifiers for these claims be changed to withdrawn.
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(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionel et al. (herein Ionel) (US 7,923,881) in view of Inoue et al. (herein Inoue) (WO 2020067349, English translation appended) in further view of Nebe et al. (herein Nebe) (US 20210135517).Regarding Claim 1:In the specification and Figures 7-10 and 19, Ionel discloses a method of assembling a downhole permanent magnet motor (PMM 500 capable of being used downhole, see abstract and Figure 19), comprising: aligning a plurality of rotor laminations (laminations 20d are stacked as shown in Figures 8-10 and discussed in column 8, lines 16-26), wherein each rotor lamination (20d) defines a plurality of apertures (plurality of magnet apertures 255, see Figure 7), wherein each of the plurality of apertures (255) comprises a first aperture (1st of four apertures 255, henceforth referred to as 255-1) configured to receive a first permanent magnet element (1st magnet 25 in 255-1, see Figure 10, henceforth referred to as 25-1), a second aperture (2nd of four apertures 255, henceforth referred to as 255-2) configured to receive a second permanent magnet element (2nd magnet 25 in 255-2, see Figure 10, henceforth referred to as 25-2), and a central opening (280) having a keyway notch (285) configured to receive a driveshaft key (see column 7, lines 59-63), so that the keyway notches of each rotor lamination is aligned with the keyway notches of the other rotor laminations (alignment of notches can be seen in Figure 8); inserting the first permanent magnet element (25-1) into the first apertures of the rotor laminations (see Figure 10), wherein inserting the first permanent magnet element comprises inserting a first plurality of magnet segments (as seen in Figure 10, at least 2 magnet segments forming 25-1 are inserted into 255-1) into the first apertures of the rotor laminations (see Figure 10); inserting the second permanent magnet element (25-2) into the second apertures (255-2) of the rotor laminations (see Figure 10), wherein inserting the second magnet element (25-2) comprises inserting a second plurality of magnet segments (as seen in Figure 10, at least 2 magnet segments forming 25-1 are inserted into 255-1) into the second apertures (255-2) of the rotor laminations (see Figure 10); inserting a drive shaft (156) into the central openings of each of the rotor laminations (shaft 700 shown in Figure 19 and discussed in column 7, lines 59-63); inserting a driveshaft key (not shown) into the keyway notch (285) of each of the rotor laminations (see column 7, lines 59-63), thereby securing a rotor assembly (10) to the drive shaft (as seen in Figure 19), wherein the rotor assembly (10) comprises the rotor laminations (20d), the first permanent magnet element (25-1), and the second permanent magnet element (25-2, as evident from Figures 8-10 and 19); and inserting the drive shaft (700) and the rotor assembly (10) into a longitudinal opening (opening at center of stator (640) of a stator (as seen clearly in Figure 19, the rotor body and shaft would be received in a longitudinal opening of the stator 640).Ionel fails to disclose the claimed shapes of the first permanent magnet element and the second permanent magnet element. However, in Figures 1-2, Inoue discloses a similar rotor (10), wherein a permanent magnet element (810) defines an arcuate radial cross-section (arcuate radial cross-section shown in Figure 2) and has a cropped surface (flat section 815, see abstract) at a middle of its arcuate radial cross-section (as seen in Figure 2) that extends axially from a first axial end of the permanent magnet element to an opposite axial end of the permanent magnet element (as evident from Figures 1-2). Inoue further discloses that this permanent magnet (810) is received in an aperture (410) such that a gap (G) is formed between a curved surface (812) of the permanent magnet (810) and a side wall surface (412) of the aperture (410). This gap (G) ensures that the permanent magnet does not contact the aperture (410) at it center. In the appended translation, on page 8 paragraphs 6-7, Inoue discloses: “According to (1), a gap is provided between the outer diameter side curved surface of the permanent magnet and the outer diameter side wall surface of the magnet insertion hole at the circumferential center of the permanent magnet. At the center in the circumferential direction, the permanent magnet does not contact the magnet insertion hole. Thereby, it is possible to avoid occurrence of excessive centrifugal stress on the outer peripheral surface of the rotor core when the rotor rotates. Further, since the deformation of the permanent magnet and the rotor core can be allowed by the gap, the thermal stress of the permanent magnet and the rotor core can be reduced.
Further, the inner diameter surface of the permanent magnet has an inner diameter side flat surface provided at a circumferential center portion, and the inner diameter side wall surface of the magnet insertion hole is provided at an inner diameter flat surface provided at a circumferential center portion of the magnet insertion hole. Having. Since the flat surface can be processed with high accuracy, the dimensional accuracy of the permanent magnet and the magnet insertion hole is improved. As a result, the magnet insertion hole can be made smaller, and a decrease in output performance of the rotating electric machine can be suppressed.” Hence, Inoue discloses several advantages with respect to the permanent magnet shape and corresponding aperture shape as described above. It is further noted that Inoue discloses several permanent magnets (810) and so these teachings would also apply to the second permanent magnet as described above. Therefore, based on Inoue’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the shape of Ionel’s first and second permanent magnets (25-1 and 25-2) and corresponding apertures (255-1 and 255-2) to have the shapes disclosed by Inoue above, i.e., each permanent magnet having an arcuate curved section with a cropped section at its middle to be received in a corresponding aperture such that a gap is formed between the permanent magnet and the receiving aperture (as taught by Inoue), since doing so would create a magnet shape and accompanying aperture shape that would help with avoidance of occurrence of excessive centrifugal stress on the outer peripheral surface of the rotor core when the rotor rotates (as discussed above based on Inoue’s disclosure). Additionally, the cropped flat surface could be processed with high accuracy, thereby improving the dimensional accuracy of the permanent magnet and the aperture (as discussed above based on Inoue’s disclosure). Note that this shape modification would apply to all the magnet segments. Ionel as modified by Inoue is silent regarding whether the second plurality of magnet segments is longitudinally staggered with respect to the first plurality of magnet segments. However, in Figures 1-4, Nebe discloses a similar rotor (2) wherein a first plurality of magnet segments (7a) is arranged in first apertures of rotor laminations (laminations forming rotor core 5, see paragraphs [0048]-[0049]) and are longitudinally staggered (axially offset, see paragraph [0064] and Figures 3-4) with respect to a second plurality of magnet segments (7b) arranged in second apertures (6b) of the rotor laminations. Furthermore, in paragraphs [0008]-[0009] Nebe states: “The invention is based on the knowledge that gaps between individual laminations of the laminated core in conventional rotors typically occur in the transition areas when the free ends of adjacent magnet elements are at the same axial position in all magnet pockets. This considerably limits the stability of the laminated core at this point. The invention now provides for arranging the first and second magnet arrangements in such a way that the magnet elements of the first magnet arrangement on the one hand and of the second magnet arrangement on the other hand—in simple terms—overlap and thus stabilize the laminated core.
[0009] This effectively counteracts the undesirable phenomenon of gap formation in the laminated core, which considerably improves the mechanical robustness of the rotor. This also leads to a reduction of noise and vibrations during operation of the rotor, as unbalances caused by the gaps are effectively reduced or avoided. In addition, the inventive concept of overlapping without fundamental design changes may be implemented with little effort and at low cost in a variety of rotor topologies with permanent magnet arrangements, which have a number of magnet elements per magnet pocket.”Hence, based on Nebe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have longitudinally staggered Ionel’s first plurality of magnet segments (25-1) with respect to the second plurality of magnet segments (25-2) as taught by Nebe (for instance by applying the arrangements shown in Nebe’s Figure 3 or Figure 4), since doing so would prevent the formation of gaps in the rotor laminations at axially aligned magnet boundaries (see discussion above), thereby counteracting gap formation and reducing the noise and vibrations during motor operation (see Nebe’s paragraphs [0008]-[0009]). Regarding Claim 3:In the specification and Figures 7-10 and 19, Ionel discloses the method, wherein each rotor lamination (20d) defines a plurality of flux barrier apertures (four deep slots 195 that act as flux barriers, see column 7, lines 1-3) located outside of the first aperture (255-1) and the second aperture (255-2) (as seen in Figure 7, the flux barriers 195 are outside 255-1 and 255-2).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 10, 21 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (herein Liu) (US 4,358,697) in view of Inoue et al. (herein Inoue) (WO 2020067349, English translation appended) in view of Nebe et al. (herein Nebe) (US 20210135517) in further view of Ionel et al. (herein Ionel) (US 7,923,881).Regarding Claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
550
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the specification and Figure 1, Liu discloses a method of assembling a downhole permanent magnet motor (PMM, see abstract, wherein said PMM is capable of being used downhole), comprising: aligning a plurality of rotor laminations (rotor body 10 made up of a stack of laminations, see column 2, lines 61-63), wherein each rotor lamination (10) defines a plurality of apertures (20, 21, 22, 23), wherein each of the plurality of apertures comprises a first aperture (20) configured to receive a first permanent magnet element (rectangular magnet in 20, henceforth referred to as PM-1, see annotated Figure A below), a second aperture (21) configured to receive a second permanent magnet element (rectangular magnet in 20, henceforth referred to as PM-2, see Figure A above), and a central opening (18); inserting the first permanent magnet element (PM-1) into the first apertures (20) of the rotor laminations (PM-1 in 20, as seen in Figure A) wherein inserting the first permanent magnet element (PM-1) comprises inserting a first plurality of magnet segments into the first apertures of the rotor laminations (at least two rectangular magnets are arranged in 20 as seen in Figure 1); inserting the second permanent magnet element (30) into the second apertures of the rotor laminations (PM-2 in 21, as seen in Figure A) inserting the second permanent magnet element comprises inserting a second plurality of magnet segments (PM-2) into the second apertures of the rotor laminations (at least two rectangular magnets are arranged in 21 as seen in Figure 1); inserting a drive shaft (not shown) into the central openings (18) of each of the rotor laminations (see column 3, lines 10-12); wherein the rotor assembly (10) comprises the rotor laminations (see column 2, lines 61-63), the first permanent magnet element (PM-1), and the second permanent magnet element (PM-2); and inserting the drive shaft and the rotor assembly into a longitudinal opening of a stator (stator not shown but rotor is installed into stator longitudinal opening as evident from claim 1 that states: “said bridges aligning with the direct axis of a motor stator when rotor is placed therein”).Liu fails to disclose the claimed shapes of the first permanent magnet element and the second permanent magnet element. However, in Figures 1-2, Inoue discloses a similar rotor (10), wherein a permanent magnet element (810) defines an arcuate radial cross-section (arcuate radial cross-section shown in Figure 2) and has a cropped surface (flat section 815, see abstract) at a middle of its arcuate radial cross-section (as seen in Figure 2) that extends axially from a first axial end of the permanent magnet element to an opposite axial end of the permanent magnet element (as evident from Figures 1-2). Inoue further discloses that this permanent magnet (810) is received in an aperture (410) such that a gap (G) is formed between a curved surface (812) of the permanent magnet (810) and a side wall surface (412) of the aperture (410). This gap (G) ensures that the permanent magnet does not contact the aperture (410) at it center. In the appended translation, on page 8 paragraphs 6-7, Inoue discloses: “According to (1), a gap is provided between the outer diameter side curved surface of the permanent magnet and the outer diameter side wall surface of the magnet insertion hole at the circumferential center of the permanent magnet. At the center in the circumferential direction, the permanent magnet does not contact the magnet insertion hole. Thereby, it is possible to avoid occurrence of excessive centrifugal stress on the outer peripheral surface of the rotor core when the rotor rotates. Further, since the deformation of the permanent magnet and the rotor core can be allowed by the gap, the thermal stress of the permanent magnet and the rotor core can be reduced.
Further, the inner diameter surface of the permanent magnet has an inner diameter side flat surface provided at a circumferential center portion, and the inner diameter side wall surface of the magnet insertion hole is provided at an inner diameter flat surface provided at a circumferential center portion of the magnet insertion hole. Having. Since the flat surface can be processed with high accuracy, the dimensional accuracy of the permanent magnet and the magnet insertion hole is improved. As a result, the magnet insertion hole can be made smaller, and a decrease in output performance of the rotating electric machine can be suppressed.” Hence, Inoue discloses several advantages with respect to the permanent magnet shape and corresponding aperture shape as described above. It is further noted that Inoue discloses several permanent magnets (810) and so these teachings would also apply to the second permanent magnet as described above. Therefore, based on Inoue’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the shape of Liu’s first and second permanent magnets (PM-1 and PM-2) and corresponding apertures (20 and 21) to have the shapes disclosed by Inoue above, i.e., each permanent magnet having an arcuate curved section with a cropped section at its middle to be received in a corresponding aperture such that a gap is formed between the permanent magnet and the receiving aperture (as taught by Inoue), since doing so would create a magnet shape and accompanying aperture shape that would help with avoidance of occurrence of excessive centrifugal stress on the outer peripheral surface of the rotor core when the rotor rotates (as discussed above based on Inoue’s disclosure). Additionally, the cropped flat surface could be processed with high accuracy, thereby improving the dimensional accuracy of the permanent magnet and the aperture (as discussed above based on Inoue’s disclosure). Note that this shape modification would apply to all the magnet segments.Liu as modified by Inoue is silent regarding whether the second plurality of magnet segments is longitudinally staggered with respect to the first plurality of magnet segments. However, in Figures 1-4, Nebe discloses a similar rotor (2) wherein a first plurality of magnet segments (7a) is arranged in first apertures of rotor laminations (laminations forming rotor core 5, see paragraphs [0048]-[0049]) and are longitudinally staggered (axially offset, see paragraph [0064] and Figures 3-4) with respect to a second plurality of magnet segments (7b) arranged in second apertures (6b) of the rotor laminations. Furthermore, in paragraphs [0008]-[0009] Nebe states: “The invention is based on the knowledge that gaps between individual laminations of the laminated core in conventional rotors typically occur in the transition areas when the free ends of adjacent magnet elements are at the same axial position in all magnet pockets. This considerably limits the stability of the laminated core at this point. The invention now provides for arranging the first and second magnet arrangements in such a way that the magnet elements of the first magnet arrangement on the one hand and of the second magnet arrangement on the other hand—in simple terms—overlap and thus stabilize the laminated core.
[0009] This effectively counteracts the undesirable phenomenon of gap formation in the laminated core, which considerably improves the mechanical robustness of the rotor. This also leads to a reduction of noise and vibrations during operation of the rotor, as unbalances caused by the gaps are effectively reduced or avoided. In addition, the inventive concept of overlapping without fundamental design changes may be implemented with little effort and at low cost in a variety of rotor topologies with permanent magnet arrangements, which have a number of magnet elements per magnet pocket.”Hence, based on Nebe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have longitudinally staggered Liu’s first plurality of magnet segments (PM-1) with respect to the second plurality of magnet segments (PM-2) as taught by Nebe (for instance by applying the arrangements shown in Nebe’s Figure 3 or Figure 4), since doing so would prevent the formation of gaps in the rotor laminations at axially aligned magnet boundaries (see discussion above), thereby counteracting gap formation and reducing the noise and vibrations during motor operation (see Nebe’s paragraphs [0008]-[0009]). Liu as modified fails to disclose the keyway structure. However, Ionel discloses a similar method of assembling a permanent magnet motor comprising aligning a plurality of rotor laminations (laminations 20d are stacked as shown in Figures 8-10 and discussed in column 8, lines 16-26), wherein each rotor lamination (20d), wherein each lamination (20d) comprises a central opening (280) having a keyway notch (285) configured to receive a driveshaft key (see column 7, lines 59-63), so that the keyway notches of each rotor lamination is aligned with the keyway notches of the other rotor laminations (alignment of notches can be seen in Figure 8), and inserting a driveshaft key (not shown) into the keyway notch (285) of each of the rotor laminations (see column 7, lines 59-63), thereby securing a rotor assembly (10) to the drive shaft (as seen in Figure 19).Hence, based on Ionel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified each of Liu’s lamination to have a respective keyway notch that was aligned with the keyway notches of the other laminations to accept a driveshaft key (as taught by Ionel) to securely detachably couple the rotor to the driveshaft for stable rotation of the rotor during operation and for easier rotor detachment form the driveshaft for maintenance.Regarding Claim 3:Liu as modified discloses the method, wherein each rotor lamination (10) defines a plurality of flux barrier apertures (apertures 26, 27 with unfilled or filled portions forming flux barriers, as mentioned in column 4, lines 55-61) located outside of the first aperture (outside 20), the second aperture (outside 21), and a plurality of conductor apertures (outside conductor apertures with conductive rotor bars 14, see Figure 1).Regarding Claim 5:Liu as modified discloses the method, further comprising installing a filler structure (die cast aluminum) into each of the plurality of flux barrier apertures (die cast aluminum which acts as flux barrier is filled into each aperture 26 and 27, see column 4, lines 55-61).Regarding Claim 10:Liu as modified discloses the method, wherein the first aperture (20) defines a first flux barrier (FFB, see Figure A and column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 9) and a second flux barrier (SFB, see Figure A and column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 9) that do not receive the first permanent magnet element (as seen in Figure A) and wherein the second aperture (21) defines a third flux barrier (TFB, see Figure A and column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 9) and a fourth flux barrier (FTFB, see Figure A and column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 9) that do not receive the second permanent magnet element (as seen in Figure A).Regarding Claim 21:Liu as modified discloses the method, wherein the first plurality of magnet segments (PM-1) and the second plurality of magnet segments (PM-2) comprise samarium cobalt (SmCo, see column 5, lines 35-42).Regarding Claim 26:Liu as modified discloses the method, wherein the first plurality of magnet segments (PM-1) and the second plurality of magnet segments (PM-2) comprise rare earth (see Liu’s column 5, lines 29-30).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (herein Liu) (US 4,358,697) in view of Inoue et al. (herein Inoue) (WO 2020067349, English translation appended) in view of Nebe et al. (herein Nebe) (US 20210135517) in further view of Ionel et al. (herein Ionel) (US 7,923,881) as evidenced by Liebermann (US 2003/0193256). Regarding Claim 2:Liu as modified is silent regarding the steps: before performing the action of inserting the drive shaft and the rotor assembly into the longitudinal opening of the stator, removing a conventional induction motor rotor assembly from the longitudinal opening of the stator.However, it is extremely well known in the art that different upgraded rotor assemblies can be retrofit into existing motors to improve their performance as desired. For instance, in the abstract, Liebermann states: “Advantageously, the resulting rotor assembly is suitable for retrofit into existing applications having strict rotor size and weight requirements.” Therefore, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidence provided by Liebermann, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention, to have performed the steps in the claimed order such as: before performing the action of inserting the drive shaft and the rotor assembly into the longitudinal opening of the stator, removing a conventional induction motor rotor assembly from the longitudinal opening of the stator, since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as retrofitting an existing motor with a superior rotor assembly for improved performance and reliability. Note that one of ordinary skill in the art could easily visualize Liu’s motor with a pre-existing convention induction motor rotor assembly that could be replaced by Liu’s rotor assembly easily. Regarding Claim 4:Liu as modified discloses the method, wherein each rotor lamination (10) defines a plurality of flux barrier apertures (20, 21, 22, 23) located outside of the first aperture (outside 26), the second aperture (outside 27), and a plurality of conductor apertures (outside conductor apertures with conductive rotor bars 14, see Figure 1).Regarding Claim 6:Liu as modified discloses the method, further comprising installing a filler structure (die cast aluminum) into each of the plurality of flux barrier apertures (die cast aluminum which acts as flux barrier is filled into each knee of slots 20, 21, 22 and 23, see column 4, lines 58-68).Regarding Claim 11:Liu as modified discloses the method, wherein the first aperture (20) defines a first flux barrier (FFB, see Figure A and column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 9) and a second flux barrier (SFB, see Figure A and column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 9) that do not receive the first permanent magnet element (as seen in Figure A) and wherein the second aperture (21) defines a third flux barrier (TFB, see Figure A and column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 9) and a fourth flux barrier (FTFB, see Figure A and column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 9) that do not receive the second permanent magnet element (as seen in Figure A).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (herein Liu) (US 4,358,697) in view of Inoue et al. (herein Inoue) (WO 2020067349, English translation appended) in view of Nebe et al. (herein Nebe) (US 20210135517) in further view of Ionel et al. (herein Ionel) (US 7,923,881) and as evidenced by Chowdhury et al. (herein Chowdhury) (US 2022/0109339). Regarding Claim 22:Liu as modified discloses the method, wherein the first plurality of magnet segments (PM-1) and the second plurality of magnet segments (PM-2) comprise samarium cobalt (SmCo, see column 5, lines 35-42) but is silent regarding whether these magnet segments can comprise neodymium iron boron (NdFeB).However, in paragraph [0036], Chowdhury states: “One or more of the permanent magnets 120 of the permanent magnet rotor segment 310 may be a rare earth permanent magnet. However, the permanent magnet 120 may be any high temperature magnet having higher coercivity, higher grade or higher operable temperature, for example, but not limited to, samarium cobalt (Sm—Co) magnet or neodymium iron boron (Nd—Fe—B) magnet, or high energy density permanent magnet, or any type of magnet which is appropriate for operation of the motor 10.” This indicates that magnets made of neodymium iron boron (NdFeB) are suitable for use as rotor magnets. Hence, based on the evidence provided by Chowdhury, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the first plurality of magnet segments (PM-1) and the second plurality of magnet segments (PM-2) to comprise neodymium iron boron (NdFeB), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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.
Claim 7 discloses: each filler structure defines an interior channel (193a/b, 195a/b) and further comprising inserting a fluid mover (232, 234, 236, 238) into each of the interior channels of the filler structures. Ionel and Liu both make no mention of an interior channel in each filler structure and a fluid mover in each interior channel. Searches have not yielded any prior art reference that teaches filler structure with an interior channel comprising a fluid mover therein.
Claims 8-9 are also allowable since they depend on claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection being used in the current office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220060071 – Rotor with magnets comprising flat and/or curved surfaces (see paragraph [0019]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights