DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 23 January 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-3, and 15-17 were previously pending; claim 18 was added by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-13, and 15-18 are now pending in the application, with claims 3, 5-6, and 11-13 being withdrawn from consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 23 January 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Applicant’s argument (pages 6-8 of the remarks) alleges that Bruhn does not disclose the first and second permanent magnets having four poles each, spaced at equal circumferential intervals, as recited in the amended limitations of claim 1. Since Bruhn discloses only two poles on the magnets, and the other applied references do not remedy this deficiency, this argument is persuasive. However, the number of poles is a known design parameter in electric motors, and new grounds of rejection have been added in view of the newly cited Li reference.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruhn et al. (DE 10125836 A1), hereinafter referred to “Bruhn”, in view of Schmengler et al. (US 2020/0370357 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Schmengler”, and Li (WO 2019/219881 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Li”.
Regarding claim 1, Bruhn discloses a motor [10] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0017) comprising:
a shaft [14] (fig. 1; ¶ 0017);
a rotor [16] fixed to the shaft [14] (fig. 1; ¶ 0017-0018);
a first permanent magnet [24] having a disc shape (fig. 1; ¶ 0018) and being fixed to the shaft [14] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0018, 0022-0024; while a soft magnetic element is shown, the “anti-rotation element” is also disclosed as being formed of “permanently magnetized sections”); and
a stationary part [12,18] comprising a frame [12] and a second permanent magnet [18] fixed to an inner circumferential surface of the frame [12] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0017),
wherein the rotor [16] includes a rotor core [16a] and a winding [16b] wound around the rotor core [16a] (fig. 1; the figure clearly shows the above elements which are well-known to represent a laminated magnetic core and an electromagnetic coil),
PNG
media_image1.png
261
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second permanent magnet [18] opposes the rotor [16] in a radial direction (fig. 1-2), the first permanent magnet [18] opposes the second permanent magnet over {a partial} circumference (fig. 2), and
the opposing surfaces of the first permanent magnet [24] and the second permanent magnet [18] respectively include different first magnetic poles and second magnetic poles (fig. 2; ¶ 0021; each magnet has two opposing poles), the first magnetic poles and the second magnetic poles alternating one another in the circumferential direction (fig. 2; ¶ 0021-0022; while not labelled, it is clear that north/south poles of the first permanent magnet are arranged opposite of south/north poles of the second permanent magnet to achieve the “inhibiting torque” of the brake element; these opposing poles are circumferentially arranged on either side of the grooves [26]), the opposing surfaces of the first permanent magnet [24] and the second permanent magnet [18] opposing in the radial direction (fig. 1-2).
Bruhn does not disclose that the first permanent magnet [24] opposes the second permanent magnet [18] over an entire circumference, or the second permanent magnet [18] having a tubular shape.
Schmengler discloses a motor [210] comprising a shaft [211], a first permanent magnet [232] fixed to the shaft [211], and a stationary second permanent magnet [233] (fig. 5; ¶ 0087-0089), wherein the first permanent magnet [232] opposes the second permanent magnet [233] over an entire circumference and the second permanent magnet [233] having a tubular shape (fig. 8-9; ¶ 0089; both magnets are “cylindrical”), and the opposing surfaces of the first permanent magnet [232] and the second permanent magnet [233] opposing in the radial direction (fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
297
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first and second permanent magnets of Bruhn from the cylindrical magnets opposed over an entire circumference as taught by Schmengler, in order to minimize the strength of a magnetic field outside the stator thereby reducing or preventing the undesired magnetization of further components (¶ 0030 of Schmengler).
Bruhn still does not disclose that a coercive force of the first permanent magnet [232] is greater than a coercive force of the second permanent magnet [233].
Schmengler further discloses that a coercive force the first permanent magnet [232] is greater than a coercive force of the second permanent magnet [233] (fig. 5; ¶ 0048; either permanent magnet can be made of either “an aluminium-nickel-cobalt alloy” or “a neodymium-iron-boron alloy”; the “neodymium-iron-boron alloy” having a greater coercive force than the “aluminium-nickel-cobalt alloy”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first and second permanent magnets of Bruhn from neodymium-iron-boron and aluminum-nickel-cobalt, respectively, as taught by Schmengler, in order to provide one magnet with high magnetization and the other with low coercive field strength thereby allowing the first magnet to be easily magnetized by the second magnet (¶ 0048 of Schmengler) thereby increasing the holding strength of the braking element.
Further, 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.
Bruhn, in view of Schmengler, still does not disclose the first magnetic poles and the second magnetic poles alternating one another in the circumferential direction at equal intervals every central angle of 90° with a total of two first magnetic poles and two second magnetic poles.
Li discloses a permanent-magnetic rotating joint [100] comprising a first permanent magnet [102] and a second permanent magnet [104] each comprising first magnetic poles [102n,104n] and second magnetic poles [102s,104s] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0037-0040), wherein the first magnetic poles [102n,104n] and the second magnetic poles [102s,104s] alternating one another in the circumferential direction at equal intervals every central angle of 90° with a total of two first magnetic poles [102n,104n] and two second magnetic poles [102s,104s] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0040).
PNG
media_image3.png
234
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li discloses the number of poles to be a result effective variable which influences the torque transmitted between the magnets (¶ 0010). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the permanent magnets of Bruhn/Schmengler each having four equally spaced magnetic poles as taught by Li, because the number of poles is a result effective variable influencing the torque of the rotating joint (¶ 0009-0011 of Li). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Bruhn, in view of Schmengler and Li, discloses the motor according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein Schmengler further discloses that a distance between opposing surfaces of the first permanent magnet [232] and the second permanent magnet [233] opposing each other is constant over the entire circumference (fig. 5, 8-9; ¶ 0089; both magnets are “cylindrical”).
Regarding claim 9, Bruhn, in view of Schmengler and Li, discloses the motor [10] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein Schmengler further discloses that the first permanent magnet [232] is a first magnet [232] and contains aluminum, nickel, and cobalt (fig. 5; ¶ 0048; either permanent magnet can be made of “an aluminium-nickel-cobalt alloy”), and the second permanent magnet [233] is a second magnet [233] and contains iron (fig. 5; ¶ 0048; either permanent magnet can be made of “a neodymium-iron-boron alloy”).
Regarding claim 17, Bruhn, in view of Schmengler and Li, discloses the motor [10] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the opposing surface of the first permanent magnet [24] is an outer circumferential surface of the first permanent magnet [24] (fig. 1-2), and
the opposing surface of the second permanent magnet [18] is an inner circumferential surface of the second permanent magnet [18] (fig. 1-2).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruhn, Schmengler, and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakuragi et al. (US 2019/0131845 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Sakuragi”.
Regarding claim 15, Bruhn, in view of Schmengler and Li, discloses the motor [10] according to claim 1, as stated above, further comprising a housing [12,12p] including the frame [12] and an end plate [12p] (fig. 1), wherein the shaft [14] includes a first end part [22] and a second end part [22b] (fig. 1; ¶ 0018).
Bruhn, in view of Schmengler, does not disclose an encoder arranged at a second end part of the housing in the second end part side of the shaft.
PNG
media_image1.png
261
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sakuragi discloses a motor [1] comprising a shaft [2] disposed within a housing [20,60] including a frame [20] and an end plate [60], wherein the shaft [2] includes a first end part [left] and a second end part [right] (fig. 1; ¶ 0023-0025), and an encoder [5,57] arranged at a second end part of the housing [20,60] in the second end part [right] side of the shaft [2] (fig. 1; ¶ 0028).
PNG
media_image4.png
521
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the motor of Bruhn/Schmengler having an encoder as taught by Sakuragi, in order to determine the rotational state of the motor allowing for accurate energization of the coils (¶ 0034 of Sakuragi).
Regarding claim 16, Bruhn, in view of Schmengler, Li, and Sakuragi, discloses the motor [10] according to claim 15, as stated above, wherein Sakuragi further discloses that the encoder [5,57] includes a disc formed of a magnet [5] and a sensor [57] (fig. 1; ¶ 0028; the Hall element detects the magnetic flux of the disc magnet).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruhn, Schmengler, and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uenishi et al. (US 2010/0176676 A1), hereinafter referred to as Uenishi”.
Regarding claim 18, Bruhn, in view of Schmengler and Li, discloses the motor [10] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein Schmengler further discloses that, in a cross-sectional view along an axial direction, the first permanent magnet [232] has a circular shape (fig. 8-9; ¶ 0089; both magnets are “cylindrical”).
Bruhn, in view of Schmengler and Li, does not disclose that, in a cross-sectional view along an axial direction, the frame has a square shape with four rounded corners, and the second permanent magnet has a square shape with four rounded corners.
Uenishi discloses a motor comprising a frame [casing] and a permanent magnet [magnet] fixed to an inner circumferential surface of the frame [casing] (fig. 3A-3B; ¶ 0016) and wherein, in a cross-sectional view along an axial direction, the frame [casing] has a square shape with four rounded corners (fig. 3A; ¶ 0031), the second permanent magnet [magnet] has a square shape with four rounded corners (fig. 3B; ¶ 0031).
PNG
media_image5.png
314
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the frame and second permanent magnet of Bruhn having the square shapes with four rounded corners as taught by Uenishi, in order to “to reduce the weight and volume of a field magnet; efficiently dispose the field magnet; lower cogging torque; and reduce the motor size without involvement of deterioration in motor performance” (¶ 0014-0015 of Uenishi).
Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a particular component of a device is a matter of design choice involving only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 571-270-5112. 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.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights