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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/30/25 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 4/3025. Regarding the amendment, claims 1-20 are present for examination.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 1 recites the term, “in particular”. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12, line 2 recites the term, “in particular”. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-11, 13-20 are rejected because of its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hillkena et al. (DE 10215213609 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hillkena teaches rotor (10) for an electric machine, in particular for an electric motor, comprising a one-piece main body (14), a stack of rotor laminations (15) which are embedded in the main body (14) and have a number of magnet pockets (11), and a number of permanent magnets (12), which are held in the magnet pockets (11), the magnet pockets (11) being closed at each axial end by the main body (14, fig 4).
Regarding claim 2, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) extends in the axial direction into the magnet pockets (11, fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) extends axially further to the outside at the axial ends of the rotor (10) than the magnet pockets (11, fig 4).
Regarding claim 4, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) forms a planar end face (fig 4).
Regarding claim 6, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) extends so far to the outside that the magnet pockets (11) are axially covered in their center (fig 4).
Regarding claim 7, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) is pot-shaped and a number of through-openings (20) are provided, which extend from the interior space of the main body (14) to an axial end face (fig 4).
Regarding claim 8, Hillkena teaches the rotor laminations (15) are exposed at the outer circumference of the rotor (10, fig 4).
Regarding claim 10, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) is formed in one piece and from plastic (page 7).
Regarding claim 11, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) is provided with a geometrical positioning formation (21).
Regarding claim 12, Hillkena teaches method for producing a rotor (10) for an electric machine, in particular for an electric motor, by means of the following steps:
assembling a stack (19) of rotor laminations (15) which each have a number of openings in such a way that a number of magnet pockets (11) are formed,
pushing a ferromagnetic body (12) into each of the magnet pockets (11),
placing the stack (19) of rotor laminations (15) fitted with the ferromagnetic bodies into an injection mould,
encapsulating the stack (19) of rotor laminations (15) with a plastics material, so as to form a main body (14) which extends at least in some sections in the radial direction up to the magnet pockets (11, fig 4).
Regarding claim 13, Hillkena teaches the ferromagnetic bodies are pushed into the magnet pockets (15) in an unmagnetized state and are magnetized after the main body (14) has been moulded onto the stack (19) of rotor laminations (15).
Regarding claim 14, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) extends axially further to the outside at the axial ends of the rotor (10) than the magnet pockets (12).
Regarding claim 15, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) forms a planar end face (fig 4).
Regarding claim 17, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) is pot-shaped and a number of through-openings (20) are provided, which extend from the interior space of the main body (14) to an axial end face (fig 4).
Regarding claim 18, Hillkena teaches the rotor laminations (15) are exposed at the outer circumference of the rotor (10).
Regarding claim 20, Hillkena teaches the main body (14) is formed in one piece and from plastic (page 7).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillkena in view of Ishida et al. (US 2007/0205686 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Hillkena teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 2, except for the added limitation of the main body leaves some of the magnet pockets exposed on at least one side of the rotor.
Ishida teaches a rotor of rotating electric machine having the main body (22) leaves some of the magnet pockets (through-hole for magnet 56) exposed on at least one side of the rotor (fig 1) to reduce stress prevent breakdown of the lamination (para [0014]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hillkena’s rotor with the main body leaves some of the magnet pockets exposed on at least one side of the rotor as taught by Ishida. Doing so would reduce stress and prevent breakdown of the lamination (para [0014]).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillkena in view of Riedl et al. (CN 102340196 A).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Hillkena teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1 and 2, except for the added limitation of a rotor shaft which is injection- moulded into the main body in a form-fitting manner is provided.
Riedl teaches a rotor (100) having a rotor shaft (10) which is injection-moulded into the main body (20) in a form-fitting manner is provided (para [0028]) to ensure the rotor shaft well fixing to the rotor core (para [0025]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hillkena’s rotor with a rotor shaft which is injection-moulded into the main body in a form-fitting manner is provided as taught by Riedl. Doing so would ensure the rotor shaft well fixed to the rotor core (para [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Repant et al. (US 20220014055 A1) teaches an electric motor includes a stator and a rotor assembly received in the stator. The rotor assembly includes a shaft, a rotor core, a rotor molding that is molded to the rotor core, and a fan. A coupler is formed on the rotor molding and a corresponding mounting hub is formed on the fan. The shaft is pressed into the rotor core after the rotor molding is molded to the rotor core, and the fan is affixed to the rotor molding by connecting the coupler and the mounting hub after the shaft is pressed into the rotor core.
Dragon et al. (US 2014/0091649 A1) teaches an electrical machine including a stator and a rotor assembly. The rotor assembly defines a rotational axis and has a rotor core wherein the rotor core defines first and second axial end surfaces. A balance ring is rotationally fixed to the rotor assembly and is configured to rotationally balance the rotor assembly. The balance ring comprises an electrically conductive and magnetically permeable material and is disposed proximate the first axial end surface and defines an air gap disposed axially between the balance ring and the first axial end surface. In some embodiments, the electric machine includes a plurality of spacers extending between the first axial end surface and the balance ring. The rotor core and balance ring may comprise a plurality of stacked electrical steel laminations. The balance ring can be used to provide electromagnetic interference shielding for a resolver. A method of manufacturing an electric machine is also disclosed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEDA T PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
/LEDA T PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
