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 . Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant has addressed various informalities regarding claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, objections to claims 1 and 5 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections: Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. This is because the added limitations to claim 1 that describe where the coupling parts connect to the magnetic pole pieces are already described by Kawamura, the primary reference, as will be shown below.
In general, the coupling parts mechanically connect a pole piece to the annular part while providing a high magnetic flux resistance path between the two. Therefore, any curved or straight connecting segment can achieve those two design objectives. For example, a number of shapes has been disclosed in the admitted prior art by Applicant, see for example: figs. 6-10 in US 20140042861 A1 or figs. 9 and 10 in JP 2004096978 A.
Accordingly, the circumferential location of the coupling point between an end part of a coupling part and a pole piece is simply a design choice which is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art. In the instant application, Applicant has not shown any unexpected results or improvements for the choice of coupling locations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation "The rotor according to claim 6" in the preamble of the claims whereas claim 6 has been cancelled by Applicant. In this Office action, “claim 6” will be interpreted as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (WO2018043288A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura discloses a rotor (fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of magnetic bodies (7a and 7b, fig. 2) stacked in an axial direction (see fig. 2); and
a plurality of first magnets (8, fig. 2), wherein
the plurality of magnetic bodies includes a plurality of first magnetic bodies (7a, fig. 2) and a plurality of second magnetic bodies (7b, fig. 2); and
wherein each first magnetic body of the plurality of first magnetic bodies includes:
a first annular part (71a, fig. 2),
a plurality of first magnetic pole pieces (72a, fig. 2) extending in a radial direction, and
a plurality of first coupling parts (73a, fig. 2) configured to couple each of the plurality of first magnetic pole pieces and the first annular part (see fig. 2),
wherein each second magnetic body of the plurality of second magnetic bodies includes:
a second annular part (71b, fig. 2),
a plurality of second magnetic pole pieces (72b, fig. 2) extending in the radial direction, and
a plurality of second coupling parts (73b, fig. 2) configured to couple each of the plurality of
second magnetic pole pieces and the second annular part,
PNG
media_image2.png
415
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the plurality of first magnetic bodies are alternatively stacked with the plurality of second magnetic bodies (see 7a and 7b in fig. 8, above),
wherein each magnet of the plurality of magnets (8, fig. 2) disposed between two adjacent first magnetic pole pieces among the plurality of magnetic pole pieces in a circumferential direction (see fig. 2),
wherein each of the plurality of first coupling parts and each of the plurality of second coupling parts include a first component extending in the radial direction and a second component extending in the circumferential direction (each coupling part extends in both radial and circumferential directions as seen in fig. 2),
PNG
media_image3.png
700
749
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein an inner peripheral part of each first magnetic pole piece of the plurality of first magnetic pole pieces includes a first end part (first end, annotated fig. 3- zoomed in) located at an upstream side in the circumferential direction,
wherein an inner peripheral part of each second magnetic pole piece of the plurality of second magnetic pole pieces includes a second end part at a downstream side in the circumferential direction (second end, annotated fig. 3- zoomed in), and
wherein a first coupling point located between the first end part and one first coupling part of the plurality of first coupling parts is at a different position from a second coupling point located between the second end part and one second coupling part of the plurality of second coupling parts in the circumferential direction (see the zoomed in portion of fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura discloses the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first magnetic bodies and the plurality of second magnetic bodies after being inverted have a same shape (see 73a and 73b in fig. 3 that are symmetric with respect to a radial direction).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura as modified by Kawaji in claim 1 discloses the rotor according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of first magnetic bodies and the plurality of second magnetic bodies have a same shape (see 7a and 7b in fig. 2); and the plurality of first coupling parts and the plurality of second coupling parts are located at positions displaced from one another in the circumferential direction (see the triangular shape extending in the axial direction in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura as modified by Kawaji in claim 1 discloses a motor (100, fig. 1) comprising: the rotor according to claim 1;
PNG
media_image4.png
454
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a shaft fixed to the rotor (65, fig. 1); and a stator (3, fig. 1) including a coil (32, fig. 1) and a magnetic body wound around with the coil (31, fig. 1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (WO2018043288A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura discloses an electronic device comprising the motor according to claim 9 but does not disclose an electronic device comprising the motor.
This undisclosed limitation is an intended use for the motor and does not further limit the structure of the motor, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the motor in an electronic device.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (WO2018043288A1) in view of Kawaji, M. (US 20140042861 A1) and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 20220037943 A1 same as JP 2020124112 A).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura discloses the rotor according to claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein a first distance between a radially innermost end of each first coupling part of the plurality of first coupling parts and a radially innermost end of each second coupling part of the plurality of second coupling parts is larger than a second distance between a radially outermost end of each first coupling part of the plurality of first coupling parts and a radially outermost end of each second coupling part of the plurality of second coupling parts.
The above undisclosed limitations by Kawamura can be simply met if the connection points of the coupling parts are moved to one of the radially inner corners of the pole pieces as taught by Kawaji, see annotated fig. 11, below.
PNG
media_image5.png
703
630
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Yamada teaches a similar rotor design wherein an arrangement for the coupling parts results in reducing the leakage of the magnetic flux of the first magnets by inserting a plurality of second magnets (second magnets, annotated fig. 3, below) in the gaps (gap, annotated fig. 3, below) between the coupling parts, see annotated fig. 3, below.
PNG
media_image6.png
679
691
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To reduce the leakage of the magnet flux of the first magnets, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coupling points of the first and second coupling parts of the rotor disclosed by Kawamura in such a way that: a first distance between a radially innermost end of each first coupling part of the plurality of first coupling parts and a radially innermost end of each second coupling part of the plurality of second coupling parts is larger than a second distance between a radially outermost end of each first coupling part of the plurality of first coupling parts and a radially outermost end of each second coupling part of the plurality of second coupling parts.
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura as modified by Kawaji in view of Yamada in claim 2 discloses the rotor according to claim 2, wherein a gap (gap, annotated fig. 3, Yamada) surrounded by the plurality of first coupling parts, the plurality of second coupling parts of a second magnetic body adjacent to the first magnetic body, the first magnetic pole piece of the first magnetic body, the second magnetic pole piece of the second magnetic body, the first annular part, and the second annular part is formed extending in the axial direction (see annotated fig. 3, Yamada; the gaps run axially implied because the gap is axial).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura as modified by Kawaji in view of Yamada in claim 2 discloses the rotor according to claim 2, wherein an extending direction of the coupling part of the first magnetic body is different from an extending direction of the coupling part of the second magnetic body (the coupling parts 73a and 73b extend in opposite circumferential directions as seen in figs. 2 and 3; see also annotated fig. 3- Yamada).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura as modified in claim 2 discloses the rotor according to claim 2, discloses the rotor comprising: a second magnet, wherein the second magnet is arranged in the gap (see annotated fig. 3, Yamada).
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 MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834