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 4, 2025. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-20 were previously pending; claims 2-4, 6-9 and 18-20 was cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1, 5, and 10-17 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 8 of Remarks) amends the drawings and title to overcome the objections. The Examiner finds the amendments acceptable, thus the objections are removed.
The Applicant's second point (page 10 of Remarks) argues that the alternately formed convex/concave rotor surfaces derived from the 8-pole/12-slot design, of the present application is inertly different than NISHIJIMA because the placement of each permanent magnet inside a convex surface would no longer be adjacent magnets being symmetric about the intervening concave surface. The Examiner fundamentally disagrees with this argument because firstly all limitations are taught by NISHIJMA or SHIH as shown on page 14-15 of the Office Action mailed on September 4, 2025. Secondly, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Therefor, anyone with ordinary skill in the art could duplicate poles and slots to better the efficiency of the device. Therefore, the argument is not found persuasive, and thus the rejection is upheld.
The Applicant's third point (page 10 of Remarks) amended claim 1 to included the limitation, “wherein a distance between each of the ends F and E of the flux barrier and the outer circumferential surface RS of the rotor constantly set to 0.5 mm or less.” The new limitation warrants further search, thus a new grounds of rejection may be applied. However, it had been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefor changing the size of the circumferential surface RS of the rotor constantly set to 0.5 mm or less would be routine in the art, thus the rejection would be upheld.
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, 5, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIJIMA(US 20210296951 A1) in view of SHIH (US 20210028661 A1).
Regarding claim 1, NISHIJIMA teaches:
A brushless motor (Fig 2; 5) comprising: a stator (Fig 2; 20)in which a plurality of teeth (Fig 2; 23)is provided inside a stator core and spaced apart from one another[0039], and pole shoes (Fig 2; 23’) respectively formed at tips of the teeth(Fig 2; 23); and
a rotor (Fig 2; 10)rotatably disposed inside the stator(Fig 2; 20) and having a plurality of permanent magnets(Fig 3; 30),
wherein an opposing surface of the pole shoe(Fig 2; 23’), which faces the rotor(Fig 2; 10), is formed in a curved shape having one or more constant curvatures(shown in Fig 2), and
wherein the rotor(Fig 2; 10) is formed in an anisotropic circular shape in which a distance between an outer circumferential surface of the rotor and a rotation center of the rotor varies depending on a position of the outer circumferential surface of the rotor(change of rotor curvature across the circumference [abstract]).
wherein the rotor (Fig 3; 10)is configured such that a distance from the rotation center (Fig 3; O1)of the rotor to the outer circumferential surface of the rotor along a q-axis (Fig 3; q-axis)of the rotor is smaller than a distance from the rotation center(Fig 3; O1) of the rotor to the outer circumferential surface of the rotor along a d-axis (Fig 3; d-axis)of the rotor, and an outer circumferential surface of the rotor adjacent to the d-axis of the rotor has an arc shape[0053],
wherein a portion (Fig 4; 40) where the outer circumferential surface of the rotor adjacent to the d-axis of the rotor(Fig 4; 10) has the arc shape is defined as a d- axis rotor portion(Fig 4; 42), and a radius of curvature (Fig 5; CR2)of the d-axis rotor portion(Fig 5; CR2) is smaller than a distance from the rotation center of the rotor to the d-axis rotor portion(Fig 5; CR1),
wherein the opposing surface of the pole shoe (Fig 2; 23’)is formed in an arc shape formed concavely inward(shown in Fig 2),
wherein a radius of curvature of the opposing surface of the pole shoe (Fig 2; 23’)is larger than a radius of curvature of the d-axis rotor portion(Fig 5; CR2)( This must be true because as shown in Fig 4 the airgap G gradually widens [0058,0060]),
wherein a radius of curvature (Fig 2; CR23’)of the opposing surface of the pole shoe(Fig 2; 23’) is larger than a distance from the rotation center (Fig 2; O1)of the rotor to the outer circumferential surface of the rotor(Fig 4 shows CR23’ enveloping the rotor thus having a larger radius of curvature than the radial distance of the rotor),
wherein the outer circumferential surface of the rotor has convex surfaces and concave surfaces formed alternately in a circumferential direction (shown in Figure 2),
wherein the outer circumferential surface of the rotor has convex surfaces (Fig 4; 40)and concave surfaces (Fig 4; 41)formed alternately in a circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of permanent magnets (Fig 4; 30)is each disposed inside the convex surface(Fig 4; 40), and the two adjacent permanent magnets (Fig 4; 30)are symmetric with respect to the concave surface (Fig 4; 41)positioned between the two adjacent permanent magnets(Fig 4; 30),
wherein an end of a flux barrier (Fig 4; 15a)of the rotor is formed in parallel with the outer circumferential surface of the rotor[0056], such that a rotor bridge has a constant thickness,
wherein a distance between each of the ends F and E of the flux barrier (Fig 4; 15a)and the outer circumferential surface RS of the rotor(Fig 2; 10) constantly set.
PNG
media_image1.png
581
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
576
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
554
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
709
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
NISHIJIMA does not teach:
wherein the plurality of permanent magnets is each disposed inside the convex surface, and
wherein twelve teeth are provided inside the stator core, and eight permanent magnets are provided in the rotor,
SHIH teaches:
wherein the plurality of permanent magnets is each disposed inside the convex surface(shown in Fig 1), and
wherein twelve teeth are provided inside the stator core, and eight permanent magnets are provided in the rotor(Fig 1 shows 12 teeth and 8 magnets).
PNG
media_image5.png
566
519
media_image5.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 NISHIJIMA by using the motor to include 12 teeth and 8 magnets and having the plurality of permanent magnets is each disposed inside the convex surface taught by SHIH in order to ensure that the output torque performance (i.e., a larger torque) can be maintained under an optimal torque ripple condition (i.e., a smother operation), it is necessary to balance the arc depth of the arc portion, the disposing position of the magnet and the size of the rib. [0005 SHIH].
Combination NISHIJIMA/SHIH discloses the claimed invention except for a distance between each of the ends F and E of the flux barrier and the outer circumferential surface RS of the rotor constantly set to 0.5 mm or less. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the distance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) .
Regarding claim 5, NISHIJIMA, in view of SHIH, teaches the brushless motor of claim 1:
wherein a center of curvature of the opposing surface of the pole shoe(Fig 2; 23’) is positioned on the same line as a width direction centerline of each of the teeth(Fig 2; 23)(the teeth are said to be symmetrical to the axial center [0038-0039], thus the center of curvature runs the same radial line as the width center point. Additionally, this limitation is taught by Fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, NISHIJIMA, in view of SHIH, teaches the brushless motor of claim 1:
wherein the plurality of permanent magnets (Fig 3; 30) is each a straight permanent magnet(Fig 3; 30).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIJIMA(US 20210296951 A1) in view of SHIH (US 20210028661 A1), in further view of MIYAJI (US 20190222088 A1).
In regards to claim 15, NISHIJIMA, in view of SHIH, teaches the brushless motor of claim 1:
wherein the plurality of permanent magnets (Fig 3; 30).
Combination NISHIJIMA/SHIH does not teach:
permanent magnets each includes a pair of unit permanent magnets, and the pair of unit permanent magnets is each a straight permanent magnet.
MIYAJI teaches:
wherein the plurality of permanent magnets (Fig 2; 6)each includes a pair of unit permanent magnets(Fig 2; 6), and the pair of unit permanent magnets is each a straight permanent magnet(Fig 2; 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
330
498
media_image6.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 NISHIJIMA by using the obtuse angle created by the pair of permanent magnets taught by MIYAJI in order to increase centrifugal strength to achieve further reduction in size and further increase in rotational speed of such a rotor[0002 MIYAJI].
In regards to claim 16, NISHIJIMA, in view of SHIH, in view of MIYAJI teaches the brushless motor of claim 15.
Combination NISHIJIMA/SHIH does not teach:
wherein the pair of unit permanent magnets is disposed in a V shape toward the rotation center of the rotor, and an angle between the pair of unit permanent magnets is 130° or more and 140°or less.
MIYAJI teaches:
wherein the pair of unit permanent magnets (Fig 2; 6)is disposed in a V shape toward the rotation center of the rotor(Fig 2; 3), and an angle between the pair of unit permanent magnets is 130° or more and 140°or less[0085].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art teaches a majority of the claim except for:
these lines being parallel. (The underlined is allowable subject matter.)
Claim 10 is allowed because the limitation of both arc portions creating an imaginary lines that run from the center of the arc portion to the center of curvature being parallel is too specific which makes it novel.
Claims 11-14 are allowed also for being dependent from claim 10.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 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.
/NICHOLAS LEE SETZER/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834