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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 12, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US 6234767 B1) in view of Oketani (US 2020/0321830 A1) and Lee (KR 101270836 B1).
RE claim 1, Takeda teaches a rotor (Figs.1-3) for a rotary electric machine having an axis of rotation (O) (Fig.19B and col.5: 40-45) and comprising:
a body 1 comprising cavities 3 and comprising a first end and a second end that are opposite to each other in the direction of the axis of rotation (O) (Figs.2, 3),
magnets 2 received in the cavities 3 (Figs.1, 2),
a first end disk 4 comprising a first number of first blades 5 that are able to move a fluid from a first radially inner position to a second radially outer position (Figs.9, 10), the first end disk 4 preventing the magnets 3 from exiting the cavities via the first end of the body 1 (because end disk 4 covers axial end of magnet 2, end disk 4 would necessary prevent magnet 3 from exiting cavities 3),
a clamping means 9 pressing the first end disk 4 directly or indirectly against the first end of the body 1 (col.6 line 65 to col.7 line 10).
wherein the first blades 9 are disposed on only one side of the first end disk 4 (it is noted that the blade 9 is only disposed only on one side of the disk).
Takeda does not teach
a shaft on which the body is mounted:
no blades are disposed on another side of the first end disk that is opposite to the one side.
RE (i) above, Oketani teaches a shaft 6 on which the body 5 is mounted (Fig.1 and ¶ 28), doing so allows input/output of torque to/from the motor (¶ 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeda by having a shaft on which the body is mounted, as taught by Oketani, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Lee teaches the first blades are disposed on only one side of the first end disk and no blades are disposed on another side of the first end disk that is opposite to the one side (Fig.4, 5), such that it possible to make surface contact with the upper side of the core without lifting (see translation page 3 last ¶).
RE claim 2/1, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda further teaches a second end disk 4, the clamping means 9 pressing the second end disk 4 directly or indirectly against the second end (Figs.1-3 and col.6 line 65 to col.7 line 10).
RE claim 3/1, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda further teaches he second end disk 4 comprises a second number of second blades 5 that are able to move a fluid from a third radially inner position to a fourth radially outer position (Figs.9, 10).
RE claim 5/1, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda further teaches the first end disk 4 comprises a first discoid part 4 from which the first blades 5 extend, the first blades 5 being formed integrally with the first discoid part 4 (Fig.3).
RE claim 7/3, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda further teaches the second end disk 4 comprises a second discoid part 4 from which the second blades 5 extend, the second blades 5 notably being formed integrally with the second discoid part 4 (Figs.3, 6).
RE claim 12/1, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda further teaches the cavities 3 are closed (on outer radial section) in a section perpendicular to the axis of rotation (O) (Fig.2).
RE claim 14/1, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda further teaches an electric machine comprising: a stator 17 (Fig.11) and the rotor as claimed in claim 1 (Figs.11, 12).
RE claim 15/2, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda further teaches the first blades 9 are disposed on only one side of the first end disk 4 (Figs.3, 6).
RE claim 19/2, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda further teaches the cavities 3 are closed (on outer radial section) in a section perpendicular to the axis of rotation (O) (Fig.2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 5235229).
RE claim 4/3, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda does not teach the first number of first blades and the second number of second blades are different and/or the first blades and/or the second blades are distributed circumferentially in an irregular manner.
Tanaka teaches teach the first number of first blades and the second number of second blades are different (see abstract and col.4 line 66 to col.5 line 10 for number of blades on the front fan is different from that of rear fan) and/or the first blades and/or the second blades are distributed circumferentially in an irregular manner, doing so allows the composite air stream sound being reduced (col.5: 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeda in view of Oketani by having the first number of first blades and the second number of second blades are different and/or the first blades and/or the second blades are distributed circumferentially in an irregular manner, as taught by Tanaka, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wetzel (US 2015/0263590 A1).
RE claim 6/5, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda does further teach first end disk 4 has a first thickness in the direction of the axis of rotation and the first discoid part 4 has a second thickness in the direction of the axis of rotation.
Takeda does not teach the ratio between the second thickness and the first thickness being between 0.2 and 0.6.
Wetzel suggests that the thickness of the fan blade and disk can be adjusted (see Fig.5) to optimize the position of the center of gravity (¶ 20). As a result of this, the axial cross section of a cooling channel does not need to be unnecessarily reduced (¶ 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee by having the ratio between the second thickness and the first thickness being between 0.2 and 0.6, as suggested by Wetzel, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8/7 is rejected for similar reason as claim 6/5.
Claims 9, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takemoto (US 2020/0220422 A1).
RE claim 9/1, Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee has been discussed above. Takeda does not teach the shaft comprise a shoulder against which the second end of the body abuts directly or indirectly in the direction of the axis of rotation, the body being clamped between the clamping means and the shoulder.
Takemoto teaches the shaft comprise a shoulder 13 (Fig.2) against which the second end of the body 22 abuts directly or indirectly in the direction of the axis of rotation (L1), the body 22 being clamped between the clamping means (nut 15) and the shoulder 13 (see Fig.2 and ¶ 26), doing so allows the rotor core to be properly fixed to the rotor shaft in this manner (¶ 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee by having the shaft comprise a shoulder against which the second end of the body abuts directly or indirectly in the direction of the axis of rotation, the body being clamped between the clamping means and the shoulder, as taught by Takemoto, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 10/9, as discussed above, Takemoto teaches the shaft 12 comprises a threaded zone 14 and the clamping means is a nut 15 screwed onto the threaded zone 14 (Fig.2 and ¶ 26).
Claim 17/2 is rejected for similar reason as claims 9/1.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aota et al. (US 2011/0062815 A1).
RE claim 13/1, Takeda in view of Oketani has been discussed above. Takeda does not teach the cavities are disposed in pairwise fashion in a form of a V.
Aota teaches the cavities 31 are disposed in pairwise fashion in the form of a V (Fig.1). As a result, the magnetic flux density generated by the field magnets 21 and 22 can be concentrated on the pole center 101 side. Therefore, a waveform of the magnetic flux density can be made closer to a sinusoidal wave (¶ 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeda in view of Oketani by having the cavities are disposed in pairwise fashion in a form of a V, as taught by Aota, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 20/2 is rejected for similar reason as claim 13/1.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Oketani and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mae et al. (US 2017/0085160 A1).
RE claim 11/1, Takeda in view of Oketani has been discussed above. Takeda further teaches the clamping means 9 comprises a shank 9 parallel to the axis of rotation A, passing through a hole formed in the body 1 (Figs.1-3).
Takeda does not teach said shank is a threaded shank
Mae teaches shank (7) comprise threaded portion (7a) (Fig.4 and ¶ 26), doing so allows the nut to be screw onto the bolt (¶ 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeda in view of Oketani by having said shank is a threaded shank, as taught by Mae, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 18/2 is rejected for the same reason as claim 11/1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 of the Remark, Applicant argued that Takeda’s internal pump mechanism includes a complex internal cooling manifold and is not limited to just the use of external fans. Applicant argued that the internal geometry of axial air airflow is crucial important and if those skill in the art want to modify Takeda to achieve the surface contact taught by Lee, they would face considerable challenge because this modification would be quite significant and potentially alter the structure of Takeda.
In response:
Applicant’s argument was not found persuasive because Applicant appeared to argue that it would be significant change to the structure of Takeda and the it would not be possible to bodily incorporate the feature of Lee into Takeda. However, it is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Seye 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 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834