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 27 January 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed claims 1-20 and 22 are now pending in the application, with claims 11-17 being withdrawn from consideration.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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 27 January 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 6-7 of the Remarks) alleges that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Tsukahara with those of Kobayashi because Tsukahara already holds its magnets in place using pins, and therefore has no need of the sleeve taught by Kobayashi. Firstly, the allegation that no additional benefit is provided by the sleeve of Kobayashi is not supported by any factual evidence. Kobayashi clearly discloses that the sleeve alleviates some centrifugal forces on the magnets (¶ 0018), holding them in place and allowing the rotor to rotate at higher rotational speeds (¶ 0056). No explanation or evidence has been shown as to how or why these effects would be negated by the presence of the pins taught by Tsukahara. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
Further, the presence of magnet-holding features in both references only supports the conclusion of obviousness, because both references (and the present application) are concerned with the problem of supporting the magnets. Further, it is noted that while the argument alleges that the presence of rods/dowels for securing the rotor components renders the sleeve redundant, the present invention also discloses both “dowels 507” and “sleeve 115” may be present (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0022-0023 of the pre-grant publication).
The Applicant’s second argument (page 8 of the Remarks) alleges that the present invention provides “unexpected results” which negate the above-discussed motivation and thus render the claimed invention unobvious. However, evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978). Thus, even if these results were deemed to be new and unexpected, they would not simply negate the existing motivation, and this allegation does not outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Further, the alleged improvements in motor performance are not accepted as “new and unexpected results” since both prior art references are concerned with improving motor performance. Tsukahara discloses the rotor being “configured to improve the performance (output torque)” using the separate pole pieces (page 2 of the translation); and Kobayashi discloses allowing the rotor to operate at higher speeds (¶ 0056-0061) thereby generating more power. As such, the advantages disclosed by the argument are neither new nor unexpected, and the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
The Applicant’s third argument (page 8 of the Remarks) alleges that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. This is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a rotor” in both lines 2 and 4. The second instance of this limitation is clearly intended to be “the rotor”, as only a single rotor is disclosed in the application. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a pair of rectangular magnets” in both lines 6 and 7. The second instance of this limitation is clearly intended to be “the pair of rectangular magnets”, as the two terms clearly refer to the same element.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-10, 18-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukahara et al. (JP 2012-010556 A), hereinafter referred to as “Tsukahara”, in view of Kobayashi et al. (WO 2021/005774 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kobayashi”.
Regarding claim 1, Tsukahara discloses an electric motor comprising:
a stator configured to generate a magnetic field and accept a rotor [R] into a central opening (fig. 1; page 2, a stator surrounds the “outer peripheral surface of the rotor R” and is wound by a coil, which generates the magnetic field); and
{the} rotor [R] sized to fit within the central opening (fig. 1; page 2, the stator surrounds the “outer peripheral surface of the rotor R”), wherein the rotor [R] comprises:
a center lamination stack [1] comprising a plurality of slots [11], where each slot [11] is configured to hold a pair of rectangular magnets [PM] in a V-shaped configuration (fig. 1-4; pages 2-3);
PNG
media_image1.png
468
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
{the} pair of rectangular magnets [PM] mounted into each of the plurality of slots [11] in the V-shaped configuration (fig. 2); and
a plurality of pole pieces [2], with each pole piece [2] mounted against a pair of the rectangular magnets [PM] mounted in each of the plurality of slots [11] (fig. 1-4; pages 2-3) so that one end of each magnet [PM] in the pair of magnets [PM] is exposed to an air gap at the outer circumference of the rotor [R] (fig. 2, 4, 8; page 3, last paragraph; gaps are formed between surface 21 of the pole piece and surface 13 of the lamination stack) to allow magnetic flux from the one end of each rectangular magnet [PM] to reach the outer circumference of the rotor [R] to minimize the loss of the magnetic flux (page 4, fifth paragraph; the elimination of the outer bridges prevents the magnets “from being affected by the leakage magnetic flux”; further, these limitations constitute only statements of intended use which do not further limit the structure of the pole pieces).
Tsukahara does not disclose a wound fiber sleeve consisting of a tensioned fiber material continuously wound around the outer circumference of the pole pieces [2] and center lamination stack [1] and configured to hold each of the plurality of pole pieces [2] in place against one of the pair of rectangular magnets [PM].
Kobayashi discloses an electric motor [1] comprising a rotor [20] that includes a plurality of magnets [22] and a core [21] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0011-0013), further comprising a wound fiber sleeve [24] consisting of a tensioned fiber material continuously wound around the outer circumference of the rotor [20] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0016-0018, 0021-0023; “a filament winding method in which continuous fibers are wound”) and configured to hold each of the magnets [22] in place against the core [21] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0018; “a fiber-reinforced plastic molded into a cylindrical shape… composed of fibers and resin”).
PNG
media_image2.png
363
816
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 wrap the outer circumference of the pole pieces of Tsukahara with a wound fiber sleeve formed from a tensioned carbon fiber filament as taught by Kobayashi, thereby holding each of the plurality of pole pieces in place against one of the pair of rectangular magnets, since carbon fiber is known for its high strength and rigidity, in order to allow the rotor to rotate at higher rotational speeds without damage (¶ 0056 of Kobayashi) and/or in order to provide protection to the rotor against damage from any potential impact.
Regarding claim 6, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the plurality of magnets [PM] is coupled to a plurality of pole pieces [2] such that each pole piece [2] is coupled with at least two magnets [PM] (fig. 1-2; each pole comprises two magnets arranged in a V-shape).
Regarding claim 7, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 6, as stated above, wherein each of the plurality of pole pieces [2] interlocks with the plurality of slots [11] in the lamination stack [1] such that the plurality of magnets [PM] is oriented between an inner edge [21] of the pole piece [2] and an outer edge [13] of the lamination stack [1] (fig. 2; page 3).
Regarding claim 8, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 7, as stated above, further comprising a plurality of locating dowels [3] running through the rotor [R] via fixturing slots [22] on an edge of each pole piece [2] (fig. 1-4; page 3).
Regarding claim 9, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 1, as stated above, wherein Kobayashi further discloses that the wound fiber sleeve [24] comprises a wound carbon fiber sleeve [24] (¶ 0021; “Examples of such fibers are glass fibers, carbon fibers, SiC fibers, aramid fibers, and boron fibers”).
Regarding claim 10, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the air gap forms an empty space [11] between an end of each of the rectangular magnets [PM] and the wound fiber sleeve [212] (fig. 2 of Tsukahara; the wound fiber sleeve of Kobayashi surrounds the outer circumference of the rotor, leaving open the spaces [11] of Tsukahara).
Regarding claim 18, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the wound fiber sleeve [212] is in contact with the lamination stack [1] and the plurality of pole pieces [2] (fig. 2 of Tsukahara; the wound fiber sleeve of Kobayashi surrounds the outer circumference of the rotor, which would contact the outer circumferential surfaces of both the lamination stack and the pole piece of Tsukahara).
Regarding claim 19, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the plurality of slots [11] of the lamination stack comprises six slots [11] (fig. 1; Tsukahara discloses a total of eight slots, including the six cited).
Regarding claim 20, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 19, as stated above, wherein each of the six slots [11] holds one of the pairs of rectangular magnets [PM] and one of the pole pieces [2] (fig. 1-2; Tsukahara discloses a total of eight pole pieces, including the six cited, each of which contains two permanent magnets arranged in a V-shape).
Regarding claim 22, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the outer circumference of the rotor [R] is circular (fig. 1-4; page 3, first paragraph; the rotor has a “cylindrical core”).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukahara and Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurai et al. (US 2016/0164356 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Sakurai”.
Regarding claim 2, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi, discloses the electric motor of Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the rotor [R] comprises a centrally located shaft [RS] with a first end and a second end (fig. 1-4; page 3, first paragraph).
Tsukahara does not disclose that the first end of the centrally located shaft [RS] comprises a radially protruding disc.
Sakurai discloses a rotor for an electric motor (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0002-0003), wherein the rotor comprises a centrally located shaft [18] with a first end [e1] and a second end [e2] (fig. 3-5; ¶ 0047, 0051; the “hub” serves the same function as the claimed shaft, on which the rotor is mounted), wherein the first end [e1] of the centrally located shaft [18] comprises a radially protruding disc [d] (fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
243
779
media_image3.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 shaft of Tsukahara having the hub and rod structures to secure the rotor core as taught by Sakurai, in order to securely fix the rotor pole pieces against both radial and circumferential forces and thereby assist in the transmission of torque (¶ 0013-0015 of Sakurai).
Regarding claim 3, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi and Sakurai, discloses the electric motor [1] of Claim 2, as stated above, wherein Sakurai further discloses that a circumference of the radially protruding disc [d] is interrupted by a plurality of flat edges [fe] (fig. 5; the lines shown along the circumference of the disc imply a flattened surface on one side of the shaft; such flattened surfaces are commonly used with keys to align the shaft during installation).
Regarding claim 4, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi and Sakurai, discloses the electric motor [1] of Claim 2, as stated above, wherein Sakurai further discloses a balance ring [22] adjacent to the first end [e1] of the centrally located shaft [18] and a plurality of locating dowels [40] in the balance ring [22] (fig. 3-5; ¶ 0047-0048, 0051).
Regarding claim 5, Tsukahara, in view of Kobayashi and Sakurai, discloses the electric motor [1] of Claim 4, as stated above, wherein Sakurai further discloses that the plurality of locating dowels [40] are embedded in a circular pattern concentric with the balance ring [22] (fig. 3-5; ¶ 0051).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Vikman et al. (US 2017/0149296 A1) discloses a rotor for an electric motor comprising a wound carbon fiber sleeve wrapped around permanent magnets on its outer circumference.
Sortore et al. (US 2009/0261678 A1) discloses a rotor for an electric motor comprising a sleeve wrapped around permanent magnets on its outer circumference, and balancing rings on either axial end of the rotor.
Ludwig et al. (US 5,486,730) discloses a rotor for and electric motor comprising a wound carbon fiber sleeve wrapped around permanent magnet on its outer circumference.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
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