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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1–15 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 4–10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 3 and 12 are objected to. Claims 3, 4, 7–10, 12 and 13 contain allowable subject matter as set forth below. This action is non-final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Corrected drawings are required.
Objection 1 — stator device (claims 6, 15) not depicted. Claims 6 and 15 recite "a stator device surrounding the rotor device." No stator device is depicted or labeled in any figure of record; Figures 1–5 show only the rotor carrier 1, the rotor device 20 and the milling tools 30, 31. Corrected drawings depicting and labeling this element are 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0071] refers to "a connecting region 3" and "the receiving section 3B"; consistent with paragraphs [0103]–[0104] and Figure 1, these should read "connecting region 3A" and "receiving region 3B."
Paragraph [0082] refers to "the second groove 7"; the second groove is element 8 (paragraph [0109]).
Paragraph [0091] refers to "the initial coordinates of the first milling tool 31"; the first milling tool is element 30 (paragraph [0115]).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 lacks a transitional phrase between the preamble "The method according to claim 9," and the step "deburring the edges"; "further comprising" or equivalent language is required.
Claim 11, last line, recites "different that the first circumferential width"; "different than" or "different from" is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following claim limitations are interpreted as set forth below.
The limitation "a positioning means for arrangement in a positioning means of the rotor carrier" in claim 5, in reference to the laminated core, uses the word "means" coupled with functional language and does not recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function; it is therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is a nose on the laminated core (paragraphs [0034], [0068]), and equivalents thereof. The limitations "at least one positioning means" (claim 1), "a positioning means of the rotor carrier" (claim 5) and "a positioning device" (claim 11) are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claims recite the structure that performs the function, namely two grooves (claim 1) or a first groove and a second groove (claim 11). The term "flange means" (claims 1, 5) is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because "flange" is a structural term.
The limitations "aligned in the axial direction (A)" (claim 1) and "axially aligned with the first groove" (claim 11): the specification states that the term "aligned" "can be understood to mean" an arrangement of the two grooves along a common straight center line (paragraph [0015]). This permissive statement does not define the term. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, two grooves are aligned in the axial direction when they are arranged one after the other in a line along the axial direction such that one groove continues into the other in the axial direction, whether or not their circumferential center lines coincide.
Claim 13 recites "the second groove is not deburred." This is a product-by-process limitation; the patentability of the claimed rotor carrier is determined by the structure implied by the limitation, not by the process of making it (MPEP § 2113). The structure implied is the plateau whose distance from the rotation axis differs from that of the outer side by a burr, as otherwise recited in claim 13.
Claim 10 recites "deburring the edges of the first or second groove" and, conditioned thereon, "when deburring the first groove ... the second milling tool removes one or more burrs." Because the deburring step may be performed on the second groove alone, the conditional "when deburring the first groove" step need not be performed to meet the claim. Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential); MPEP § 2111.04(II).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4–10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites that the plateau has a distance from the rotation axis "which is smaller by a burr created during production of the other one of the two grooves," and claim 13 recites that the plateau has "a distance from the rotation axis that is smaller than a distance from the outer side to the rotation axis by a burr created during production of the second groove." The height of a burr created during production is not a defined dimension; it varies with the tool, the material and the cutting conditions, and neither the claims nor the specification assign it a value or range. The metes and bounds of the recited distance therefore cannot be determined.
Claim 5 recites "a shaft having a flange means," "a laminated core, having a positioning means," and "a positioning means of the rotor carrier," whereas claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, already recites "a shaft," "a flange means," "laminated cores" and "at least one positioning means." It is unclear whether the shaft, flange means, laminated core and positioning means of claim 5 are the same as, or in addition to, those recited in claim 1. Claim 5 further recites "a groove of the rotor carrier"; it is unclear whether this groove is one of the "two grooves" of claim 1 or a further groove. Claim 6 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 5.
Claim 7 recites "the free end of the second milling tool." Only "a free end of the first milling tool" is introduced; there is insufficient antecedent basis for the free end of the second milling tool. Claims 8–10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
Claim 9 recites that the rotation axes of the milling tools "end at the same coordinates." Only "a same end point" is introduced earlier in the claim; there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the same coordinates." Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
Claim 10 recites "the transition from a surface (O) of the axial stop ... into the first groove," whereas claim 9 introduces "a transition from the first groove into the second groove." It is unclear whether the transition recited in claim 10 is the transition introduced in claim 9 or a different transition.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2015/0171701 A1) in view of Storckl (WO 2010/072446 A2). Citations to Storckl are to the paragraph numbers of the English machine translation of record.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a rotor carrier for a rotor device of an electric machine of an electric or hybrid vehicle(Kim ¶¶[0039], [0041]; FIG. 1; cylindrical member 13 with an open end, a closed end and aperture 15, carrying rotor core 11 of rotor 10 of a permanent magnet synchronous drive motor for a hybrid or electric vehicle), having:
a receiving section for laminated cores(Kim ¶¶[0008], [0041]; outer circumferential surface of member 13 on which rotor core 11, a stack of steel plates, is fixed),
wherein the receiving section has a laminated core holder for non-rotatable arrangement of laminated cores(Kim ¶¶[0024], [0058]; core 11 fixed in the rotation direction relative to member 13 on its outer circumferential surface) and an axial stop for limiting a movement of the laminated cores in an axial direction (A)(Kim ¶¶[0018], [0057]; catching projection 57 supports key protrusion 61 against being pulled out in the axial direction, fixing core 11 in the axial direction relative to member 13),
wherein the receiving section has at least one positioning means for relative alignment of the laminated cores on the laminated core holder(Kim ¶¶[0048], [0055]; keyway portions 51 in the outer circumferential surface couple core 11 to member 13 in the axial and rotation directions, whereby core 11 is positioned on the outer circumferential surface),
wherein the at least one positioning means has two grooves which are designed with different widths in a circumferential direction (U)(Kim ¶¶[0049]–[0050]; FIG. 1; first keyway 53 and second keyway 55, keyway 55 having a width greater than the width of keyway 53 based on the rotation direction),
and wherein the two grooves are arranged so as to be aligned in the axial direction (A)(Kim ¶¶[0049]–[0050], [0055]–[0056]; FIG. 1; keyway 53 extends in the axial direction from the open end and is connected to keyway 55, which extends toward the closed end; key protrusion 61 is inserted axially through keyway 53 into keyway 55).
Kim does not explicitly teach a flange connection portion for connection to a flange means of a shaft of the rotor device. Kim is silent on this limitation because Kim is directed to fixing rotor core 11 on member 13 and does not describe how member 13 is connected to the drivetrain; aperture 15 in the closed end is identified but its connection is not described (Kim ¶[0041]).
However, in the analogous art of rotor carriers for electric machines of hybrid vehicle drives, Storckl teaches a flange connection portion for connection to a flange means of a shaft of the rotor device(Storckl ¶¶[0043], [0045]–[0046]; FIGS. 2, 4a, 4b; one-piece, cup-shaped connecting element 14 serving as rotor carrier, whose first section 15 faces and is joined to flange-shaped section 23 of drive shaft 13, screws 25 through the aligned through-bores carrying the axial forces, and whose second section 16 carries laminated core 17 of rotor 18).
Kim and Storckl are in the same field of rotor carriers for electric machines of hybrid vehicle drives and both concern the rotationally fixed mounting of a laminated rotor core for torque transmission through a cup-shaped carrier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closed end of Kim's cup-shaped member 13 with a flange connection portion joined to a flange-shaped section of a drive shaft as taught by Storckl, because Storckl teaches that joining the cup-shaped rotor carrier directly to the flange section of the drive shaft provides a simple and therefore low-cost connection that transmits the required torque and the tangential forces(Storckl ¶[0012]), and that the cup form of the rotor carrier is preferred for electric and hybrid drives(Storckl ¶[0026]). Applying Storckl's known flange joint to Kim's cup-shaped member 13, which requires a drivetrain connection at its closed end, is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and would have yielded the predictable result of a torque-transmitting connection between the rotor carrier and the shaft. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 2/1, Kim in view of Storckl teaches the rotor carrier of claim 1.
Kim further teaches wherein one of the two grooves, when viewed in the circumferential direction (U), has a first width (D1) and the other one of the two grooves, when viewed in the circumferential direction (U), has a second width (D2) and the first width is wider than the second width(Kim ¶[0050]; FIG. 1; second keyway 55 has a width greater than the width of first keyway 53 based on the rotation direction of member 13).
Regarding claim 5/1, Kim in view of Storckl teaches the rotor carrier of claim 1.
Kim further teaches a rotor device for an electric machine of an electric or hybrid vehicle(Kim ¶¶[0039]–[0041]; rotor 10), having the rotor carrier(Kim FIG. 1; member 13),
and a laminated core, having a positioning means for arrangement in a positioning means of the rotor carrier(Kim ¶¶[0051]–[0052]; FIG. 2; key protrusions 61 integrally formed on the inner circumferential surface of rotor core 11 so as to correspond to keyway portions 51),
wherein the laminated core with its positioning means is arranged within a groove of the rotor carrier or within the positioning means of the rotor carrier(Kim ¶[0057]; FIGS. 2–3; key protrusion 61 coupled within the other side region of second keyway 55).
Kim is silent wherein the rotor device has a shaft having a flange means connected to the flange connection portion of the rotor carrier, because Kim does not describe the connection of member 13 to the drivetrain (Kim ¶[0041]).
However, Storckl teaches a shaft having a flange means for connection to the flange connection portion of the rotor carrier(Storckl ¶[0045]; FIG. 4a; drive shaft 13 having flange-shaped section 23 whose surface 22 faces surface 20 of first section 15 of rotor carrier 14),
and wherein the flange means of the shaft is connected to the flange connection portion of the rotor carrier(Storckl ¶[0046]; FIG. 4b; after joining, projections 19 of section 15 are seated in recesses 24 of flange-shaped section 23, and screws 25 pass through the aligned through-bores). One would be motivated to connect Kim's member 13 to a drive shaft through the flange joint taught by Storckl because Storckl teaches that this joint is simple, low-cost and transmits the required torque and tangential forces(Storckl ¶[0012]).
Regarding claim 6/5, Kim in view of Storckl teaches the rotor device of claim 5.
Kim further teaches an electric machine for an electric or hybrid vehicle(Kim ¶[0039]; permanent magnet synchronous drive motor of a hybrid, fuel cell or electric vehicle) having the rotor device and a stator device surrounding the rotor device(Kim ¶¶[0040], [0044]; interior rotor type synchronous motor in which the stator is provided outside the rotor core and rotor core 11 rotates inside the stator).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a rotor carrier for a rotor of an electric machine(Kim ¶¶[0039], [0041]; FIG. 1; member 13 carrying rotor core 11 of rotor 10 of a drive motor), comprising:
a rotation axis(Kim ¶¶[0048]–[0049]; FIG. 1; axial direction and rotation direction of member 13, with its axis shown as the center line in FIG. 1);
a receiving section arranged for receiving laminated cores(Kim ¶¶[0008], [0041]; outer circumferential surface of member 13 receiving rotor core 11 of stacked steel plates),
the receiving section comprising: a laminated core holder arranged for non-rotatably holding the laminated cores(Kim ¶¶[0024], [0058]; core 11 fixed in the rotation direction relative to member 13);
an axial stop arranged for limiting axial movement of the laminated cores(Kim ¶¶[0018], [0057]; catching projection 57 fixing core 11 in the axial direction);
and a positioning device for relative alignment of the laminated cores on the laminated core holder(Kim ¶¶[0048], [0055]; keyway portions 51 positioning core 11 on the outer circumferential surface),
the positioning device comprising: a first groove comprising a first circumferential width(Kim ¶[0049]; FIG. 1; first keyway 53);
and a second groove, axially aligned with the first groove and comprising a second circumferential width, different that the first circumferential width(Kim ¶¶[0050], [0055]–[0056]; FIG. 1; second keyway 55 connected to keyway 53 and extending from it toward the closed end, key protrusion 61 passing axially through keyway 53 into keyway 55, keyway 55 having a width greater than that of keyway 53).
Kim does not explicitly teach a flange connection portion arranged for connecting to a rotor shaft. Kim is silent on this limitation because Kim is directed to fixing rotor core 11 on member 13 and does not describe the connection of member 13 to the drivetrain (Kim ¶[0041]).
However, in the analogous art of rotor carriers for electric machines of hybrid vehicle drives, Storckl teaches a flange connection portion arranged for connecting to a rotor shaft(Storckl ¶¶[0043], [0045]–[0046]; FIGS. 2, 4a, 4b; first section 15 of cup-shaped rotor carrier 14 joined to flange-shaped section 23 of drive shaft 13 by projections 19 seated in recesses 24 and screws 25). Kim and Storckl are in the same field of rotor carriers for electric machines of hybrid vehicle drives and both concern the rotationally fixed mounting of a laminated rotor core for torque transmission through a cup-shaped carrier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closed end of Kim's cup-shaped member 13 with a flange connection portion for joining to a flange-shaped section of a drive shaft as taught by Storckl, because Storckl teaches that this joint is simple, low-cost and transmits the required torque and tangential forces(Storckl ¶[0012]) and that the cup form is preferred for electric and hybrid drives(Storckl ¶[0026]), a known technique applied to a similar device with predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 14/11, Kim in view of Storckl teaches the rotor carrier of claim 11.
Kim further teaches a rotor device for an electric machine(Kim ¶[0041]; rotor 10), comprising the rotor carrier(Kim FIG. 1; member 13)
and the laminated cores non-rotatably held in the laminated core holder(Kim ¶¶[0024], [0058]; core 11 fixed in the rotation direction relative to member 13),
the laminated cores comprising respective positioning features arranged within the second groove(Kim ¶¶[0052], [0057]; FIGS. 2–3; a plurality of key protrusions 61 spaced apart on the inner circumferential surface of core 11, each coupled within second keyway 55).
Kim is silent wherein the rotor device comprises the rotor shaft connected to the flange connection portion, because Kim does not describe the connection of member 13 to the drivetrain (Kim ¶[0041]).
However, Storckl teaches the rotor shaft connected to the flange connection portion(Storckl ¶¶[0045]–[0046]; FIG. 4b; flange-shaped section 23 of drive shaft 13 joined to first section 15 of rotor carrier 14 by projections 19 in recesses 24 and screws 25). One would be motivated to connect Kim's member 13 to a drive shaft through the flange joint taught by Storckl because Storckl teaches that this joint is simple, low-cost and transmits the required torque and tangential forces(Storckl ¶[0012]).
Regarding claim 15/14, Kim in view of Storckl teaches the rotor device of claim 14.
Kim further teaches an electric machine(Kim ¶[0039]; permanent magnet synchronous drive motor)
and a stator device surrounding the rotor device(Kim ¶¶[0040], [0044]; stator provided outside the rotor core, rotor core 11 rotating inside the stator).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 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.
Claims 7–10 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Claims 4 and 13 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 12: the closest prior art of Kim, Storckl, Miyamoto (JP 2007-135371 A) and Matsuda (JP 2016-093015 A) does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations of the base claim, a rotor carrier "wherein, when viewed in a radial direction (R), a first distance (A1) between a first bottom (B1) of one of the two grooves and a rotation axis (X) is greater than a second distance (A2) between a second bottom (B2) of the other one of the two grooves and the rotation axis (X)" (claim 3) or "wherein, when viewed in a radial direction a first distance between a bottom of the first groove and the rotation axis is greater than a second distance between a bottom of the second groove and the rotation axis" (claim 12). No reference of record provides a reason with rational underpinning to form the two axially aligned grooves of the positioning means to different depths. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Regarding claims 4 and 13: the closest prior art of Kim, Storckl and Matsuda does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations of the base claim, that the groove arranged within the axial stop "reduces an outer diameter (AD) of the laminated core holder of the receiving section of the rotor carrier by 0.05 to 0.5 mm, so that, in preparation for the other one of the two grooves, a plateau is created on an outer side (AS) of the laminated core holder" (claim 4) or "reduces an outer diameter of the laminated core holder by 0.05mm to 0.5mm to create a plateau on an outer side of the laminated core holder" (claim 13). No reference of record provides a reason with rational underpinning to form a plateau on the outer side of the laminated core holder with the groove arranged within the axial stop. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Regarding claims 7–10: the closest prior art of Kim, Storckl and Matsuda does not teach or suggest a method for producing a positioning means in a rotor carrier comprising "changing the first milling tool to a second milling tool, positioning the second milling tool relative to the rotor carrier at the initial coordinates of the first milling tool in the axial direction (A) and circumferential direction (U)" and "wherein the second radial distance (A2) is smaller than the first radial distance (A1)" in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 7. No reference of record provides a reason with rational underpinning to create the two grooves with different milling tools started at the same coordinates and set to different radial distances. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miyamoto (JP 2007-135371 A) — rotor with a keyway in the rotor shaft and a keyway in the end face of a separate flange member for keying electromagnetic steel sheets of different inner diameters.
Matsuda (JP 2016-093015 A) — rotor shaft with an axial keyway crossing the shaft flange and a wider crimping groove communicating axially with the keyway, both formed with the same end mill.
Reinhart (US 2012/0242187 A1) — rotor hub with a dovetail slot retaining a separate rotor key that engages a slot in the rotor stack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 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 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://pairdirect. 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).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights