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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed December 18, 2025. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-17 were previously pending; no claims were cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1-17 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 7-10 of Remarks) amends claim 1 to include the limitation, “the dummy poles are disposed to be next to no magnet poles in a radial direction.” The Applicant goes on to argue that MURATA (JP 2011199918 A) does not teach that limitation. The Examiner agrees with the Applicants argument. However, YAMADA (US 20130300242 A1) does teach dummy polls being dispose next to no magnet poles in a radial direction. As shown in Fig 42 of YAMADA, the embodiment contains solid dummy poles 423/433 with no magnet poles radial to them. Therefore, the prior art does teach the new limitation, making the argument moot and upholding the 103 rejection. The upheld rejection is provided below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA (US 20130300242 A1) in view of MURATA (JP 2011199918 A).
In regards to claim 1, YAMADA teaches:
A rotating electrical machine(Fig 33; 401) comprising:
a stator(Fig 33; 405); and
a rotor (Fig 33; 408)disposed inside the stator (Fig 33; 405)in a rotatable state with respect to the stator[0264]; wherein
the stator (Fig 33; 405)includes a core back (Fig 33; 406)formed in an annular shape[0263], a plurality of teeth [0177, 0202]radially projecting from the core back towards the rotor, and a plurality of windings wounded around the plurality of teeth(coils wound on the teeth of the stator are commonly found in the art and escribed in paragraph[0177, 0202]),
the rotor (Fig 33; 408)includes a rotor core(Fig 42; 414/415), a shaft (Fig 42; 410) disposed inside the rotor core and extending in an axial direction[0264], and a plurality of magnetic poles (Fig 42; 424/434)disposed on a surface of the rotor core(Fig 42; 414/415),
the plurality of magnetic poles includes a plurality of magnet poles formed by permanent magnets(Fig 42; 424/434), and a plurality of dummy poles (Fig 42; 423/433)formed by magnetic flux emitted from the magnet poles interlinking with parts of the rotor core[0316-0317, 0319-0320],
the magnet poles(Fig 42; 424/434) and the dummy poles(Fig 42; 423/433) are alternately disposed in both the axial direction and a circumferential direction,
the dummy poles (Fig 42; 423/433) are disposed to be next to no magnet poles in a radial direction(shown in Fig 42, the embodiment contains solid dummy poles 423/433 with no magnet poles radial to them)
non-magnetic holes (Fig 42; H1)are provided between the magnet poles (Fig 42; 424/434)and the dummy poles(Fig 42; 423/433) that are adjacent in the axial direction [0315, 0317],
when a length of each magnet pole of the magnet poles (Fig 42; 424/434)in the axial direction is tm(Fig 42; tm), a length of each dummy pole of the dummy poles(Fig 42; 423/433) in the axial direction is tc(Fig 42; tc), a length of each non- magnetic hole of the non-magnetic holes(Fig 42; H1) in the axial direction is ta(Fig 42; ta), and a length of the rotor core in the axial direction is lc(Fig 42; lc)[0362],
the rotating electrical machine satisfies tm> tc and lc< (2 x tm)+ ta(the axial length of the magnetic pole (tm) is at least longer than half of the axial length (lc) of the rotor [0362], thus both conditions are met).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
274
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
555
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
YAMADA does not teach:
a space (Fig 3; S1)such that the magnet poles(Fig 3; 23a/b)and the dummy poles (Fig 3; 22a/b) do not abut in the axial direction.
MURATA teaches:
non-magnetic holes (Fig 3; H1)are provided between the magnet poles (Fig 3; 23a/b) and the dummy poles(Fig 3; 22a/b)that are adjacent in the axial direction to provide a space (Fig 3; S1)such that the magnet poles(Fig 3; 23a/b)and the dummy poles (Fig 3; 22a/b) do not abut in the axial direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
515
559
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 YAMADA by adding the a space between the magnet and dummy pole taught by MURATA in order to prevent short-circuiting of magnet magnetic flux and suppress torque deterioration in a permanent-magnet electric motor [abstract MURATA].
In regards to claim 2, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 1.
YAMADA does not teach:
a non-magnetic region is provided between the shaft and a magnet pole of the magnet poles.
MURATA teaches:
a non-magnetic region (Fig 3; N1) is provided between the shaft (Fig 3; 24)and a magnet pole of the magnet poles(Fig 3; 23a).
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 YAMADA by using a non-magnetic region provided between a shaft and a magnet pole taught by MURATA in order to prevent short-circuiting of magnet magnetic flux and suppress torque deterioration in a permanent-magnet electric motor [abstract MURATA].
Regarding claim 3, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 1:
the rotor (Fig 33; 408)includes a layer in which the magnet poles (Fig 42; 424/434)and the dummy poles (Fig 42; 423/433)are disposed alternately in the circumferential direction(shown in Fig 42), and a layer in which the magnet poles (Fig 42; 424/434)are arranged in the circumferential direction without the dummy poles being disposed(at the mid-point of the axial length no dummy poles alternate along the circumference shown in Fig 42)).
Regarding claim 4, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 1:
the rotor core (Fig 44; 414/415)includes a connecting portion(Fig 44; 416/417),
the connecting portion (Fig 44; 416/417) connects a portion of the rotor core (Fig 44; 414)located on a radially inner side of a magnet pole of the magnet poles(Fig 44; 424/434), and a portion of the rotor core (Fig 44; 415)located on a radially inner side of a dummy pole (Fig 44; 423/433)of the dummy poles.
Regarding claim 5, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 1:
the rotating electrical machine satisfies 0.210 <tc / lc< 0.465 (YAMADA states that the axial length of the magnets (tm) may be modified so that it is at least half the axial length of rotor (lc) [0362]. Therefore, the axial length of the dummy pole (tc) can be modified to be any length less than half of the rotor. Thus, the conditions can be met.).
Additionally, the Applicant should note that 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.
In regards to claim 6, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 2:
the rotor (Fig 33; 408)includes a layer in which the magnet poles (Fig 42; 424/434)and the dummy poles (Fig 42; 423/433)are disposed alternately in the circumferential direction(shown in Fig 42), and a layer in which the magnet poles (Fig 42; 424/434)are arranged in the circumferential direction without the dummy poles being disposed(at the mid-point of the axial length no dummy poles alternate along the circumference shown in Fig 42)).
In regards to claim 7, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 2:
the rotor core (Fig 44; 414/415)includes a connecting portion(Fig 44; 416/417),
the connecting portion (Fig 44; 416/417) connects a portion of the rotor core (Fig 44; 414)located on a radially inner side of a magnet pole of the magnet poles(Fig 44; 424/434), and a portion of the rotor core (Fig 44; 415)located on a radially inner side of a dummy pole (Fig 44; 423/433)of the dummy poles.
Regarding claim 8, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 3:
the rotor core (Fig 44; 414/415)includes a connecting portion(Fig 44; 416/417),
the connecting portion (Fig 44; 416/417) connects a portion of the rotor core (Fig 44; 414)located on a radially inner side of a magnet pole of the magnet poles(Fig 44; 424/434), and a portion of the rotor core (Fig 44; 415)located on a radially inner side of a dummy pole (Fig 44; 423/433)of the dummy poles.
In regards to claim 9, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 6:
the rotor core (Fig 44; 414/415)includes a connecting portion(Fig 44; 416/417),
the connecting portion (Fig 44; 416/417) connects a portion of the rotor core (Fig 44; 414)located on a radially inner side of a magnet pole of the magnet poles(Fig 44; 424/434), and a portion of the rotor core (Fig 44; 415)located on a radially inner side of a dummy pole (Fig 44; 423/433)of the dummy poles.
In regards to claim 10, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 2:
the rotating electrical machine satisfies 0.210 <tc / lc< 0.465 (YAMADA states that the axial length of the magnets (tm) may be modified so that it is at least half the axial length of rotor (lc) [0362]. Therefore, the axial length of the dummy pole (tc) can be modified to be any length less than half of the rotor. Thus, the conditions can be met.).
Additionally, the Applicant should note that 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.
Regarding claim 11, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 3:
the rotating electrical machine satisfies 0.210 <tc / lc< 0.465 (YAMADA states that the axial length of the magnets (tm) may be modified so that it is at least half the axial length of rotor (lc) [0362]. Therefore, the axial length of the dummy pole (tc) can be modified to be any length less than half of the rotor. Thus, the conditions can be met.).
Additionally, the Applicant should note that 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.
Regarding claim 12, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 4:
the rotating electrical machine satisfies 0.210 <tc / lc< 0.465 (YAMADA states that the axial length of the magnets (tm) may be modified so that it is at least half the axial length of rotor (lc) [0362]. Therefore, the axial length of the dummy pole (tc) can be modified to be any length less than half of the rotor. Thus, the conditions can be met.).
Additionally, the Applicant should note that 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.
In regards to claim 13, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 6:
the rotating electrical machine satisfies 0.210 <tc / lc< 0.465 (YAMADA states that the axial length of the magnets (tm) may be modified so that it is at least half the axial length of rotor (lc) [0362]. Therefore, the axial length of the dummy pole (tc) can be modified to be any length less than half of the rotor. Thus, the conditions can be met.).
Additionally, the Applicant should note that 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.
In regards to claim 14, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 7:
the rotating electrical machine satisfies 0.210 <tc / lc< 0.465 (YAMADA states that the axial length of the magnets (tm) may be modified so that it is at least half the axial length of rotor (lc) [0362]. Therefore, the axial length of the dummy pole (tc) can be modified to be any length less than half of the rotor. Thus, the conditions can be met.).
Additionally, the Applicant should note that 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.
Regarding claim 15, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 4:
the rotating electrical machine satisfies 0.210 <tc / lc< 0.465 (YAMADA states that the axial length of the magnets (tm) may be modified so that it is at least half the axial length of rotor (lc) [0362]. Therefore, the axial length of the dummy pole (tc) can be modified to be any length less than half of the rotor. Thus, the conditions can be met.).
Additionally, the Applicant should note that 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.
In regards to claim 16, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 9:
the rotating electrical machine satisfies 0.210 < tc / lc< 0.465 (YAMADA states that the axial length of the magnets (tm) may be modified so that it is at least half the axial length of rotor (lc) [0362]. Therefore, the axial length of the dummy pole (tc) can be modified to be any length less than half of the rotor. Thus, the conditions can be met.).
Additionally, the Applicant should note that 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.
Regarding claim 17, YAMADA, in view of MURATA, teaches the rotating electrical machine according to claim 1:
YAMADA does not teach:
a non-magnetic region is provided between the shaft and a magnet pole of the magnet poles, and
the non-magnetic region and the non-magnetic hole are adjacent.
MURATA teaches:
a non-magnetic region (Fig 3; N1) is provided between the shaft (Fig 3; 24)and a magnet pole of the magnet poles(Fig 3; 23a), and
the non-magnetic region (Fig 3; N1)and the non-magnetic hole (Fig 3; H1)are adjacent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm 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, 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 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834