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 . Claims 6-12 are cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 13-16 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2026,12/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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.
Claim 1-5,13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the word “there” at the end of claim 1, which is confusing what is meant by “there” in the claim. Clarification is needed.
Claims 2-5 and 13-16 are rejected based on dependency of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “w/w”, also it recites “w/w in each case, what is meant by each case, or w/w. clarification is needed.
Claim 14 recites the word “preferably”, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “form a solid body”, and the claim also recites “preferably “Castrip” which is narrower, Also it recites broad recitations “10um”, and Narrower limitation “preferably <5um” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 14 and claim 15, it is unclear if the claim encompasses a device or a method.
More specifically, the limitations of " ****THE WHOLE CLAIM**** " seem to be directed to apparatus structure instead of method steps. As such, claim 14,15 is neither directed to a “process” nor a “machine”, but rather embrace or overlap two different statutory classes of invention. The court determined in IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 77 UDPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) that claims with a device structure and a method step therein are indefinite under 112(2) because it cannot be determined when the claim is infringed. Additionally, combining two separate statutory classes of invention in a single claim raises a serious question for a manufacturer or seller regarding infringement. Therefore, a claim directed to more than one different statutory class of invention is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the "metes and bounds" of protection involved so that an evaluation of the possibility of infringement may be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, as discussed by the court in In re Hammack, supra (Ex Parte Lyell). For examination purposes, the limitations in question will be interpreted as "put the claim in apparatus form”.
Claim 16 is also method claim and depends from claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed as best understood and fixed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Re-claim 1, recites “inter alia” “ 1. (Currently Amended) A permanently excited dynamoelectric machine (PDM) comprising: a stator (S-T-T)-and a rotor (ETR)-mounted rotatably about a longitudinal axis[[ (X)]], wherein the stator (S-T-T)-has a winding system; and (WND-)-wherein-permanent magnets (PMG)-are-arranged on the rotor-(RTR), wherein a magnetic material of the permanent magnets (RMG)has a preferred direction (PFD)-for magnetization, so that paths through the permanent magnets(MG)- are definable in a direction of a local preferred direction (RPFD)-in each case, wherein a magnet dimension (M-TH)-in the local preferred direction (FD) associated with a point on a pole face (P-AR)-is defined as [[the]]a path length from the point to a corresponding point on another pole face along the local preferred direction (PFD) through a permanent magnet (PMG)of the permanent magnets, wherein a gap (RGP) is formed between the rotor (RTR) and the stator (STT), wherein the winding system (LND)-is designed-configured and arranged such that the winding system interacts electromagnetically with the permanent magnets (RMG) of the rotor (-RT-)-via the gap-(RGP), -wherein the permanent magnets (P-MG)-are designed configured as CeFeB-based magnets, wherein the permanent magnets (PMG)-extending at least in sections along the longitudinal axis [[(X) ]]are designed-configured and arranged [[in ]]such a--way=that [[(a)]] the permanent magnets (PMG) each have a north pole (NPL) and a south pole (SPL) on a side facing the gap (RGP) and the magnet dimension (MTH) in the local preferred direction (PFD), starting from the center of gravity of the north pole, is between 1/10 and 1/3 of a rotor diameter [[there]].
(see Fig below).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art of record fail to teach the combination of limitations of claims 1, furthermore, the closest prior art of record: teach rotor with magnet structure, but fail to teach the details of claim 1 and dimensions from center of gravity and structure of magnet as detailed in claim 1, they fail to teach herein a magnet dimension (M-TH)-in the local preferred direction (FD) associated with a point on a pole face (P-AR)-is defined as [[the]]a path length from [[this]]the point to a corresponding point on another pole face along the local preferred direction (PFD) through a permanent magnet (PMG)of the permanent magnets, wherein a gap (RGP) is formed between the rotor (RTR) and the stator (STT), wherein the winding system (LND)-is designed-configured and arranged such that the winding system interacts electromagnetically with the permanent magnets (RMG) of the rotor (-RT-)-via the gap-(RGP), -wherein the permanent magnets (P-MG)-are configured as CeFeB-based magnets, wherein the permanent magnets (PMG)-extending at least in sections along the longitudinal axis [[(X) ]]are designed-configured and arranged [[in ]]such a--way=that [[(a)]] the permanent magnets (PMG) each have a north pole (NPL) and a south pole (SPL) on a side facing the gap (RGP) and the magnet dimension (MTH) in the local preferred direction (PFD), starting from the center of gravity of the north pole, is between 1/10 and 1/3 of a rotor diameter” Other prior art in IDS or in search reports, AI Search or ip.com NPL and Patent Search nor Global Dossier Searches are not closest to teach claim 1, nor do they suggest nor can modify the closest prior art Hefei or any other prior art of record to make all the combined limitations of claim 1 which are detailed and are unique combination and are therefore allowed.
None of the prior art search, Google Patent Search, International Search Reports, East Search, Ip.com NPL and Patent Search teach or suggest alone or in combination the combination of claim 1 above, the combination of the limitations of the claim are unique.
PNG
media_image2.png
4
4
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on dependency from allowed claim 1 when addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. 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.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights