Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/954,355

ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE

Non-Final OA §102§103§DP
Filed
Sep 28, 2022
Examiner
CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU
Art Unit
3729
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
587 granted / 940 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
988
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 940 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §DP
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II, claims 12-17, in the reply filed on 9/9/2025 is acknowledged. However, since claim 19 includes all the limitations of claim 6, the restriction requirement between inventions I and II is hereby withdrawn and all claims are examined. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. 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 – Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US2018/0034332A1) Takahashi discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Figs. 1 and 16; the embodiment of Fig. 16 is the same as that of Fig. 2, except for the presence of flanges 22c; therefore, references to paragraphs related to the embodiment of Fig. 2 also apply to the embodiment of Fig. 16): Claim 1. A rotary electric machine (1, Fig. 1) comprising: a stator (20, Figs. 1 and 16) including a yoke portion (22a, Fig. 16) having an annular shape and a plurality of teeth portions (22b) configured to protrude from an inner circumferential edge of the yoke portion in a radially inward direction of the yoke portion, slots (25, Fig. 16) each being formed between adjacent ones of the plurality of teeth portions; and a rotor (30, Figs. 1 and 16) disposed inside the stator and facing toward the plurality of teeth portions, wherein the rotor includes a rotor core (31, Figs. 1 and 16) configured to retain permanent magnets (33, Figs. 1 and 16) with a number of poles of 16 to 32 (see “16 poles” in [0046]), and a rotating shaft (13, Fig. 1) configured to rotate integrally with the rotor core, and when the stator and the rotor are viewed in an axial direction of the stator, an average number of the slots for one magnetic pole is six (there are 96 slots and 16 poles, i.e. 6 slots per pole; see [0046]). 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(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Yazaki (US2015/0084469A1). Takahashi discloses the claimed invention as follows: Claim 2. The rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein the rotor core is formed with a first insertion hole (31a, Fig. 16) in which the rotating shaft (13, Fig. 1) is disposed (see [0066]), Claim 3. The rotary electric machine according to claim 2, wherein the rotor core is a stacked body of a plurality of electromagnetic steel sheets (see “steel sheets” in [0066]), the first insertion hole, Claim 4. The rotary electric machine according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of electromagnetic steel sheets are stacked in a first mode or a second mode, Yazaki discloses a rotor for an electric machine, as follows: Regarding Claim 2: A rotor (10, Fig. 3), wherein the rotor core (5, Fig. 3) is formed with a first insertion hole (7, Fig. 3) in which the rotating shaft (not shown) is disposed (see [0040]), a plurality of through holes (9a, Figs. 1 and 3) formed radially outward of the first insertion hole, and a plurality of second insertion holes (3, Fig. 3) formed radially outward of the plurality of through holes, the permanent magnets (not shown) being inserted into the second insertion holes (see [0040]), wherein the rotor core includes an inner annular portion (11, Fig. 3) located between the first insertion hole and the plurality of through holes, an outer annular portion (13, Fig. 3) located radially outward of the plurality of through holes and including the plurality of second insertion holes formed therein, and a plurality of coupling portions (15, Fig. 3) configured to couple the inner annular portion with the outer annular portion. Regarding Claim 3: The rotor core is a stacked body of a plurality of electromagnetic steel sheets (1, Fig. 3), the first insertion hole (7, Fig. 3), the plurality of through holes (9a, Fig. 1), and the plurality of second insertion holes (3a, Fig. 1) are formed in each of the plurality of electromagnetic steel sheets (see Figs. 1 and 3, and [0042]), and each of the plurality of electromagnetic steel sheets includes the inner annular portion (11a, Fig. 1), the outer annular portion (13, Fig. 1), and the coupling portions (15, Fig. 1); see Figs. 1 and 3 and [0042]. Regarding Claim 4: The plurality of electromagnetic steel sheets are stacked in a first mode or a second mode, the first mode (see Figs. 2 and 3; see [0040] to [0058]) is a mode in which, in one electromagnetic steel sheet and another electromagnetic steel sheet that are stacked and adjacent to each other among the plurality of electromagnetic steel sheets, the plurality of coupling portions of the one electromagnetic steel sheet and the plurality of coupling portions of the other electromagnetic steel sheet are located so as not to overlap with each other when the rotor is viewed in an axial direction of the rotor, and the second mode (see Figs. 9 and 10; see [0064]-[0074]) is a mode in which a plurality of sheet groups (17 and 19) each including the plurality of electromagnetic steel sheets are stacked in the axial direction, and in one sheet group and another sheet group that are stacked and adjacent to each other among the plurality of sheet groups, the plurality of coupling portions of the one sheet group and the plurality of coupling portions of the other sheet group are located so as not to overlap with each other when the rotor is viewed in the axial direction. As can be seen from Yazaki, the claimed rotor core structure is conventional. Takahashi focuses on various possible magnet arrangements, without discussing in any detail the rotor core structure radially closer to the shaft. The through holes 9a allow for passage of cooling oil, for liquid cooling (see [0046]). In view of the teachings of Yazaki, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the rotor core of Takahashi to include through holes as taught by Yazaki, to implement an electrical machine using cooling oil for liquid cooling of the rotor. Given that such a structure is conventional, modifying the rotor of Takahashi in this manner would have had predictable results. Claim 5-7, 11-3 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Tong (US2017/0366075A1). Takahashi further discloses the claimed invention as follows (limitations not disclosed by Takahashi are crossed out, below): Claim 5. The rotary electric machine according to claim 1, Claim 6. A rotary electric machine (1, Fig. 1) comprising: a stator (20, Figs. 1 and 2) including a yoke portion (22a, Fig. 2) having an annular shape and a plurality of teeth portions (22b) configured to protrude from an inner circumferential edge of the yoke portion in a radially inward direction of the yoke portion, slots (25, Fig. 2) each being formed between adjacent ones of the plurality of teeth portions; and a rotor (30, Figs. 1 and 2) disposed inside the stator and facing toward the plurality of teeth portions, wherein the rotor includes a rotor core (31, Figs. 1 and 2) configured to retain permanent magnets (33, Figs. 1 and 2) with a number of poles of 16 to 32 (see “16 poles” in [0046]), and a rotating shaft (13, Fig. 1) configured to rotate integrally with the rotor core, the plurality of teeth portions each include a base portion protruding from the inner circumferential edge of the yoke portion in a radially inward direction of the yoke portion (see Fig. 16), a flange portion (22c, Fig. 16) that is closer to the rotor than the base portion is and wider than the base portion, Claim 7. The rotary electric machine according to claim 6, wherein when the stator and the rotor are viewed in an axial direction of the stator, an average number of the slots for one magnetic pole is six (there are 96 slots and 16 poles, i.e., 6 slots per pole; see [0046]). Claim 11. Claim 12. A rotary electric machine (1, Fig. 1) comprising: a stator (20, Figs. 1 and 2) including a yoke portion (22a, Fig. 2) having an annular shape and a plurality of teeth portions (22b) configured to protrude from an inner circumferential edge of the yoke portion in a radially inward direction of the yoke portion, slots (25, Fig. 2) each being formed between adjacent ones of the plurality of teeth portions; and a rotor (30, Figs. 1 and 2) disposed inside the stator and facing toward the plurality of teeth portions, wherein the rotor includes a rotor core (31, Figs. 1 and 2) configured to retain permanent magnets (33, Figs. 1 and 2) with a number of poles of 16 to 32 (see “16 poles” in [0046]), and a rotating shaft (13, Fig. 1) configured to rotate integrally with the rotor core, the stator includes electromagnetic coils (21, Fig. 1) provided in the slots, the plurality of teeth portions each include a base portion protruding from the inner circumferential edge of the yoke portion in a radially inward direction of the yoke portion (see Fig. 16), a flange portion (22c, Fig. 16) that is closer to the rotor than the base portion is and wider than the base portion, a position of an inner circumferential end of each of the electromagnetic coils facing toward the rotor is shifted from an inner circumferential end of the base portion toward the yoke portion in each of the slots (i.e., the coils are understood to be disposed radially outward of the flange portion 22c, though not explicitly shown), and Claim 13. The rotary electric machine according to claim 12, wherein when the stator and the rotor are viewed in an axial direction of the stator, an average number of the slots for one magnetic pole is six (there are 96 slots and 16 poles, i.e., 6 slots per pole; see [0046]). Claim 17. Claim 18. The rotary electric machine according to claim 12, Claim 19. The rotary electric machine according to claim 18, Regarding claim 6: Referring to Fig. 2, Tong discloses a stator including a yoke portion 8 having an annular shape, and a plurality of teeth 7 protruding radially inwardly from the yoke. The teeth each include a base portion 12 protruding from the inner circumferential edge (by 12a) of the yoke portion in a radially inward direction, a flange portion 13 wider than the inner end 12b of the base portion, and an expanding portion 14, having a width increasing from the end 12b of the base portion toward the flange portion 13. Referring to Fig. 3, Tong discusses the angle θ between the coil accommodating portion 9 (which is a side of a tooth base portion) and a slot opening portion 10 (which is a side of the flange portion 13). Tong teaches setting the angle θ between 90ۣ° and 130° (see [0074], [0075] and [0102]). If the angle is less than 90°, the torque decreases sharply. Tong also discusses various embodiments in which a flange portion thickness Z is 0.5 mm, but states it can be between 0.3 and 1.0 mm (see [0097]), “whereby magnetic resistance can be reduced” in the flange portion (see [0097]). Although Tong focuses of synchronous reluctance motors, the total torque of a permanent magnet motor of the type disclosed by Takahashi depends not just on the rotor magnet torque, but also on the reluctance torque. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that modifications to stator structure that increase reluctance torque would also be useful for increasing a motor torque for a permanent magnet motor of the type disclosed by Takahashi. In view of the teachings of Tong, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the stator teeth of Takahashi to have an expanding portion to set the intersection angle between the base portion and the expanding portion between 90° and 130°, such as between 108 and 130 degrees. Note that a 90° angle essentially corresponds to no expanding portion, as in Takahashi Fig. 16, whereas in view of Tong any angle between 90 and 130 degrees is understood to be suitable. Still further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to set the flange portion thickness to between 0.3 and 1.0 mm, to reduce magnetic resistance, as discussed in [0097] of Tong. Regarding claim 12: Takahashi does not give specific stator dimensions. Tong discloses a stator with an outer diameter of 90 mm and inner diameter of 50 mm (refer to Fig. 2 and [0025]), i.e. 20 mm stator thickness in the radial direction. In the example discussed with respect to Fig. 4, the radial width Y of the yoke 8 is 7.2 mm (see [0048]), which means the slot depth would be 12.8 mm (i.e. 20 mm - 7.2 mm). Referring to Expression (2) in [0036] and to the detailed discussion in [0037] and [0039], Se is the sectional area of each conductor portion 15, as seen in Fig. 2. Expression (2) subtracts W (i.e., the radial width of the slot connection portion 11. This means that, although Fig. 2 shows the paper 16 contacting the radially outer part of the flange, the entire arrangement consisting of four conductors and two layers of insulating paper is disposed radially outwardly of the slot connection portion 11. Therefore, referring to Fig. 2, the coil conductor portion 15 is shifted radially outwardly relative to the inner circumferential end of the flange portion 13 by a distance equal to the sum of flange portion thickness Z (0.5 mm; see [0048]) and slot connection portion 11 thickness W (calculated below using Expression (3), and the paper insulation 16 thickness D, which is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be very thin, and is therefore ignored, to establish a worst-case scenario. Regarding W, it is given by Expression (3) (see [0036]). As per [0048]-[0049], Tong varies the circumferential width X between 1.6 and 3.6 mm, and M is 0.5 mm. As an example, for calculation purposes, the examiner selects 1.6 mm. As per [0075], the angle θ is selected between 90 and 130°. As an example, for calculation purposes, the examiner selects 108°. Expression (3) then gives W = (0.5⋅1.6 - 0.5⋅0.5)/tan(180°-108°) = 0.1787 mm, i.e. approximately 0.18 mm. The shift amount is, therefore, 100⋅(0.5 mm + 0.18 mm)/12.8 mm = 5.3 %. Given the teachings, by Tong, of suitable stator dimensions for a motor stator, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to implement the stator of Takahashi as a stator with the same radial thickness and same values for θ, X, M, W, Y and Z as discussed, given that such stator dimensions are conventional. As a result, the stator as modified would also have a shift amount of 5.3%. Regarding claims 5, 11 and 17: Tong teaches X≤H and X≤H≤Y (see [0044] and [0048]), where H is the average circumferential width of a stator core, i.e., H=(H1+H2)/2 (H1 at the radially inner side, and H2 at the radially outer side; see [0042] and [0043]). In view of the teachings of Tong, in order to implement a stator having the values for θ, X, M, W, Y and Z as discussed above, but also having 96 slots as taught by Takahashi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to set the inner diameter of the stator to 96⋅ (X+ H1), as there are 96 slots and 96 teeth in such a stator. Setting H1=X=1.6 mm, this would give a minimum inner diameter of 307.2 mm. The outer diameter would be the inner diameter plus the stator radial thickness of 40 mm, as discussed above with respect to Tong), i.e., 347.2 mm. Therefore, from the combined teachings of Takahashi and Tong, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious the claimed stator diameter. Regarding claims 18 and 19: see the discussion relevant to claim 6. The same rationale applies. Still further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to set the flange portion thickness to between 0.3 and 1.0 mm, to reduce magnetic resistance, as discussed in [0097] of Tong. Claim(s) 8-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Tong, further in view of Yazaki. Regarding the limitations of claims 8-10 and 14-16, please refer to the rejection of claims 2-4, above. The same rationale applies, mutatis mutandis. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET. 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 28, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP
Mar 23, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12550268
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CIRCUIT WIRING BY THREE-DIMENSIONAL ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528254
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A 3D ELECTROMECHANICAL COMPONENT HAVING AT LEAST ONE EMBEDDED ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12506458
PACKAGING MODULE AND PACKAGING METHOD OF BAW RESONATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12501551
Method for Embedding a Component in a Printed Circuit Board
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12500494
METHOD FOR HARDENING A BRIDGE ASSEMBLY OF A ROTATIONAL BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+25.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 940 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month