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 .
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 1-19 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the segments are “not directly connected to a common metallic link”; the metes and bounds of “a common metallic link” cannot be determined. The specification does not use this term, and it is unclear what structure constitutes a “common metallic link” or whether metallic structures that connect the segments (e.g., axial returns) are within or outside the scope of the limitation.
Claim 2 recites “to the outer radial end”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as the claim introduces only “an inner radial end.” Claim 2 also uses the inconsistent terms “the at least one circumferential first gap” and “the at least one circumferential gap” for what was introduced as “at least one first circumferential gap,” rendering it unclear whether the same element is intended.
Claim 11 recites “a first subset of axial returns of the annular array of axial returns”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as neither claim 11, nor parent claim 10, nor claim 1 introduces “an annular array of axial returns.”
Claims 13, 18, and 19 each recite “the first ring segment” and “the second ring segment”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations because parent claim 10 introduces “a plurality of first ring segments” and “a plurality of second ring segments,” but does not introduce a singular “first ring segment” or “second ring segment.” Claim 18 additionally recites “the flip mirror” of the second ring segment, for which there is insufficient antecedent basis and whose scope is unclear.
Claims 2-19 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CALLEY(US20130264905A1).
Regarding claim 1, Calley teaches an electric motor(transverse flux machine 100 including rotor and stator, ¶[0051], Figs. 1-6),
a rotor configured to rotate on a rotational axis to generate a mechanical output, the rotor comprising a rotor body and a permanent magnet array(rotor 450/150A carrying permanent magnets and flux concentrators, ¶¶[0051], [0070]),
a stator spaced radially relative to the rotor and disposed about the rotational axis(stator side laminations spaced from rotor 450 across an air gap, ¶[0071]),
a stator phase formed from a first pair of flux rings and a first coil disposed axially between the first pair of flux rings(paired side laminations 412 with a back-return lamination about coil 120A, ¶[0019], ¶[0054]),
wherein a first flux ring of the pair of flux rings includes a plurality of first ring segments disposed circumferentially about the rotor axis(ring-shaped side-lamination structure formed of plural lamination stacks 514/614, e.g., twenty-five stacks, ¶¶[0085], [0087], Figs. 5-6),
wherein each first ring segment of the plurality of ring segments is formed as a separate stack of laminas(each lamination stack 514/614 formed of stacked side laminations, ¶¶[0084], [0091]),
that have a radially oriented grain(grain orientation configured in a generally radial direction, ¶¶[0087], [0088]),
and wherein each first ring segment of the plurality of first ring segments is spaced circumferentially from each adjacent first ring segment of the plurality of first ring segments by a first circumferential gap to form a plurality of first circumferential gaps in the first flux ring(cuts 615 segmenting the ring and providing separation between adjacent laminations/stacks, ¶¶[0086], [0087]),
and such that the plurality of first ring segments form a broken ring about the rotational axis(segmented, generally ring-shaped structure formed of the separate stacks, ¶¶[0085], [0087]),
in which the plurality of first ring segments are not directly connected to a common metallic link(adjacent lamination stacks 614 coupled by discrete non-magnetic inserts 617 of liquid crystal polymer, plastic, or ceramic, rather than by a common metallic link, ¶¶[0090], [0091]).
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 2-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLEY(US2013264905A1).
Regarding claim 2/1, Calley teaches the electric motor of claim 1.
Calley further teaches an electric motor having a first flux ring formed of a plurality of first ring segments separated by circumferential gaps (cuts 615, ¶¶[0089]–[0090], Fig. 6).
Calley does not explicitly teach a bisect line through the at least one first circumferential gap from an inner radial end of the at least one first circumferential gap to the outer radial end that is offset from any first ring segment; Calley forms its gaps by cuts 615 shaped for interlocking or insert coupling and does not specify the geometric orientation of a bisecting line through a gap.
However, orienting a gap so that its bisecting line passes through only the gap and is offset from the segments is an obvious matter of design choice, the specification identifying no criticality for such orientation (stating only that the gaps “can… be radially oriented”). See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04. It would have been obvious to so orient the gaps of Calley in order to provide clean uniform separation between adjacent rings.
Regarding claim 3/2, Calley teaches the electric motor of claim 2.
Calley discloses the circumferential gaps between the ring segments (cuts 615, ¶¶[0089]–[0090], Fig. 6).
Calley does not explicitly teach that the bisect line is a radial line from the rotational axis; Calley does not specify the angular orientation of its gaps.
However, orienting a gap so that its bisecting line is a radial line from the rotational axis is an obvious matter of design choice absent a showing of criticality. See In re Kuhle; MPEP 2144.04. It would have been obvious to so orient the gaps of Calley in order to provide clean uniform separation between adjacent rings.
Regarding claim 4/1, Calley teaches the electric motor of claim 1.
Calley discloses circumferential faces on each ring segment (the interlocking/dovetail faces, ¶¶[0089], [0093]–[0094], Figs. 5-6).
Calley does not explicitly teach a first smoothly contoured circumferential face and a second smoothly contoured circumferential face; Calley’s faces are shaped for mechanical interlocking or insert coupling rather than smooth contour.
However, a change in the shape of the circumferential faces is an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to form the faces of Calley with a smoothly contoured shape in order to reduce stress concentrations at the faces.
Regarding claim 6/1, Calley teaches the electric motor of claim 1.
Calley discloses each first ring segment comprising a segment body (lamination stack 614) having circumferential ends, radial sides, and axial faces, an arcuate array of first spurs (teeth 416) extending toward the rotor from a first radial side, and an outer interface surface disposed on a second radial side and interfacing with a first annular array of axial returns (back return laminations) (¶¶[0016], [0056]–[0058], [0091], Figs. 1-6).
Calley does not explicitly teach that the first spurs extend circumferentially towards the first circumferential end; Calley’s teeth 416 are disclosed as facing the rotor radially.
However, canting the spurs circumferentially is an obvious matter of design choice/change in configuration absent a showing of criticality. See In re Dailey; In re Kuhle; MPEP 2144.04. It would have been obvious to do this in order to shape the magnetic flux path towards to rotor to increase efficiency.
Regarding claim 7/6, Calley teaches the electric motor of claim 6.
Calley discloses the outer interface surface of each segment interfacing with the first annular array of axial returns (back return laminations, Fig. 4b).
Calley does not explicitly teach that the outer interface surface is multifaceted to interface with a plurality of first axial returns of the first annular array of axial returns; Calley does not detail the faceting of the interface surface.
However, configuring the interface surface as multifaceted to contact a plurality of returns is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle; MPEP 2144.04. One would be motivated to do this in order to increase contact area with axial returns for improved magnetic coupling.
Regarding claim 8/1, Calley teaches the electric motor of claim 1.
Calley discloses the plurality of first circumferential gaps between adjacent ring segments (¶¶[0089]–[0090],(Figs. 6)).
Calley does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of first circumferential gaps between the adjacent ones of the plurality of first ring segments varies in separation distance; Calley’s gaps receive substantially uniform non-magnetic inserts.
However, varying the separation distance of the gaps is an obvious matter of design choice/change in configuration. See In re Dailey; MPEP 2144.04(IV). One would be motivated to do this in order to have easy assembly by accommodating dimensional tolerances.
Regarding claim 9/1, Calley teaches the electric motor of claim 1.
Calley discloses forming the first flux ring from a plurality of “similarly sized” lamination stacks (¶[0086],(Fig. 6).
Calley does not explicitly teach that each first ring segment of the plurality of first ring segments is configured identically; Calley describes the stacks as similarly sized rather than identical.
However, configuring the similarly sized segments identically is an obvious matter of design choice and/or a mere duplication of identical parts having no patentable significance absent a new and unexpected result. See In re Kuhle; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). One would be motivated to do this in order to simplify assembly through identical segments.
Claims 10, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLEY(US2013264905A1) in view of LI(US9577502B2).
Regarding claim 10/1, Calley teaches the electric motor of claim 1.
Calley discloses a first flux ring of the pair of flux rings formed of a plurality of first ring segments disposed circumferentially and spaced by circumferential gaps (¶¶[0088], [0090], Figs. 6).
Calley does not explicitly teach that a second flux ring of the pair of flux rings includes a plurality of second ring segments disposed circumferentially about the rotor axis and spaced by a plurality of second circumferential gaps.
However, Li discloses a transverse flux machine having first and second stator sub-assemblies, each comprising a plurality of stator core elements 52 disposed circumferentially about the axis and spaced from one another (¶¶[0005]–[0007], [0036-[0037]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to segment the second flux ring of Calley into a plurality of circumferentially spaced second ring segments, as taught by Li, in order to reduce torque ripple and cogging torque. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 13/10, Calley in view of Li teaches the electric motor of claim 10.
Calley discloses each first ring segment having a first segment body (lamination stack 614) and a first arcuate array of first spurs (teeth 416) (¶¶[0056]–[0058], [0091], Figs. 5-6).
Calley does not explicitly teach that the second ring segment includes a second segment body and a second arcuate array of second spurs.
However, Li discloses stator core elements 52 in both the first and second sub-assemblies, each carrying pole teeth 56 (¶¶[0036-[0037]], [0068]).
It would have been obvious to provide the second ring segments of Calley with second segment bodies and second spurs, as taught by Li, in order to form the corresponding pole structure on the second flux ring and reduce torque ripple and cogging. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 14/13, Calley in view of Li teaches the electric motor of claim 13.
Calley discloses the first spurs (teeth 416) extending toward the rotor (¶¶[0059]–[0061]).
Calley does not explicitly teach that the first spurs are canted in a first circumferential direction.
However, Li discloses offsetting the stator pole teeth circumferentially by a predetermined angle (¶¶[0028], [0030]) to reduce torque ripple and cogging (¶¶[0005]–[0006]). Achieving that circumferential tooth-position variation by canting the spurs, rather than by offsetting the tooth row, is an obvious matter of design choice/change in configuration. See In re Dailey; In re Kuhle; MPEP 2144.04. One would be motivated to vary the tooth position in order to have reduction of torque ripple and cogging. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 15/14, Calley in view of Li teaches the electric motor of claim 14.
Calley discloses the second spurs(teeth 416) extending toward the rotor.
Calley does not explicitly teach that the second spurs are canted in a second circumferential direction opposite the first circumferential direction.
However, Li discloses offsetting the teeth of the second sub-assembly circumferentially relative to the first (¶¶[0028], [0030]) to reduce torque ripple and cogging (¶¶[0005]–[0006]). Canting the second spurs in the opposite circumferential direction to achieve the complementary tooth arrangement is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Dailey; In re Kuhle; MPEP 2144.04 One would be motivated to vary the tooth position in order to have reduction of torque ripple and cogging. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 17/15, Calley in view of Li teaches the electric motor of claim 15.
Calley discloses the first spurs and the second spurs(teeth 416).
Calley does not explicitly teach that the first spurs are axially aligned with second troughs between the second spurs; and the second spurs are axially aligned with first troughs between the first spurs.
However, Li discloses offsetting the teeth of the second sub-assembly circumferentially from those of the first by a predetermined angle (¶¶[0028], [0030]), thereby positioning the teeth of one sub-assembly opposite the gaps (troughs) of the other. It would have been obvious to so align the first and second spurs with the troughs of the opposite flux ring, as taught by Li, in order to reduce torque ripple and cogging. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP 2143.
Claims 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLEY(US2013264905A1) in view of LI(US9577502B2) and further in view of DUBOIS(US200700013253A1).
Regarding claim 11/10, Calley in view of Li teaches the electric motor of claim 10.
Calley discloses an annular array of axial returns (back return laminations) extending between the paired side laminations (Fig. 4), and Li discloses first and second segmented stator sub-assemblies (¶¶[0028], [0030]).
Calley in view of Li does not explicitly teach that a first subset of axial returns of the annular array of axial returns extend between and electromagnetically connect a first ring segment of the first flux ring and a second ring segment of the second flux ring.
However, Dubois discloses a segmented-core transverse flux machine in which each U-shaped magnetic core has an end segment substantially parallel to the axis that connects the two radially extending arm/foot poles located at the two axial positions (¶¶[0011]–[0014]).
It would have been obvious to connect a first ring segment and a second ring segment of the Calley/Li machine by a first subset of the axial returns, as taught by Dubois, in order to complete the transverse flux magnetic circuit between the two flux rings—a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 12/11, Calley in view of Li and Dubois teaches the electric motor of claim 11.
Calley discloses back return laminations contacting the side laminations (¶[0019]), and Dubois discloses a U-shaped core end segment connecting the two poles of a segment (¶¶[0011]–[0014]).
Calley in view of Li and Dubois does not explicitly teach that the first ring segment includes a first interface surface and the second ring segment includes a second interface surface, the first interface surface axially aligned with the second interface surface.
However, axially aligning the interface surfaces so that a single axial return extends between and contacts both is an obvious arrangement/design choice for connecting the segments of the two flux rings. See In re Japikse; In re Kuhle; MPEP 2144.04. One would be motivated to do this in order to enable a single axial return to span and contact both segments to complete the magnetic circuit.
Regarding claim 16/15, Calley in view of Li teaches the electric motor of claim 15.
Calley in view of Li discloses the first spurs(teeth 416).
The combination does not explicitly teach that each first spur of the first spurs has a swept profile by having a first side surface angled relative to a second side surface such that the first side surface has a larger surface area.
However, Dubois discloses shaping the magnetic foot (pole) asymmetrically so that it deviates the magnetic flux and the poles are angularly offset (¶¶[0028], [0040]). It would have been obvious to form the spur with such an asymmetric, swept profile, as taught by Dubois or as a change in shape, in order to deviate the magnetic flux as taught by Dubois. See In re Dailey; MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP 2143.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALLEY(US2013264905A1) in view of LI(US9577502B2), and further in view of JANECEK(US2015162786A1).
Regarding claim 18/10, Calley in view of Li teaches the electric motor of claim 10.
Calley discloses the first and second ring segments; Li discloses the two sub-assemblies’ teeth offset circumferentially (¶¶[0022], [0024]).
Calley in view of Li does not explicitly teach that the first ring segment is the flip mirror of the second ring segment; neither reference describes forming the second segment as a mirror image of the first.
However, Janecek discloses forming a transverse flux stator lamination with radially extending members that extend in alternating axial directions to form opposing pairs of teeth, the members being angled or positioned to implement a phase offset (¶¶[0047]–[0049], [0052]–[0053]).
It would have been obvious to form the first ring segment as the flip mirror of the second (an identical part in a reversed orientation), consistent with Janecek’s opposing, phase-offset arrangement, in order to achieve the offset tooth arrangement while enabling the use of identical segments across the two flux rings—a predictable manufacturing benefit. See In re Kuhle; In re Harza; MPEP 2144.04(VI); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 19/10, Calley in view of Li teaches the electric motor of claim 10.
Calley discloses the first and second ring segments; Li discloses the circumferential offset between the two sub-assemblies (¶¶[0022], [0024]).
Calley in view of Li does not explicitly teach that the second flux ring is formed with the second ring segment flipped about a radial axis to be in a second configuration different from the base configuration.
Janecek discloses radially extending members that extend in alternating axial directions with an implemented phase offset (¶¶[0047]–[0049]). It would have been obvious to form the second flux ring by flipping a base-configuration segment about a radial axis into a second configuration, consistent with Janecek’s arrangement, in order to achieve the offset tooth arrangement while using identical segments across the two flux rings—a predictable manufacturing benefit. See In re Kuhle; In re Harza; MPEP 2144.04(VI); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 20: the limitation “…each first ring segment of the plurality of first ring segments floats relative to other first ring segments of the plurality of first ring segments such that the plurality of first ring segments are not connected together by metal laminate structure” in the combination as claimed is not anticipated nor obvious over the prior art of record.
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.”
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
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights